AMF_Task_60

Task Number 60
A Report from the

Advanced Motor Fuels Technology Collaboration Programme
Task 60:
The Progress of
Advanced Marine Fuels
Kim Winther Wei Anli Debbie Rosenblatt
DTI Denmark ESC of MVPA of MIIT ECCC Canada
China
German Weisser Michael Wang Päivi Aakko-Saksa

WinGD Switzerland Argonne USA VTT Finland
Youngmin Woo Helen Lindblom Igor Sauperl

KIER Korea Trafikverket Sweden LEC Austria
October / 2023
Summary / Abstract
Significant progress has been made in recent years to adapt marine power systems to future low-
carbon and carbon free fuels. This report showcases international achievements and ongoing efforts
to adapt combustion engines to the fuels of the future.
Some main conclusions of this report are:

Marine engine technology can utilize a wide range of renewable fuels and the market for flexible fuel
marine engines is steadily growing.
The main fuels in focus currently are LNG, LPG, Methanol, Ammonia, Pyrolysis-oils, Bio-crudes, and
Hydrogen.
Marine engines are available as gasoline-type SI-engines up to ~10 MW, 4-stroke diesels up to ~20
MW and 2-stroke diesels up to ~80 MW.
The dominant engine technology for alternative fuel use is Dual Fuel Technology.
Dual Fuel engines with low pressure gas admission deliver environmental benefits due to low NOX
emissions compliant with IMO Tier III without aftertreatment. Any other engine type can be equipped
with SCR and/or EGR to enable compliant NOX emissions.
Sulfur emissions can be tackled with the new standard LSFO fuel, available since 2020, or with a
scrubber installation.
Particle emissions, especially Black Carbon emissions, are most effectively reduced using clean
burning fuels such as gas or alcohol. Scrubbers alone do not always solve this in full, and particulate
filters are not suitable for every engine.
CO2 emissions from engines are most effectively reduced with renewable Power-to-X-type fuels, or
advanced biofuels. On-board Carbon capture is a technology under investigation. Carbon Capture
can be combined with bio- or Power-to-X-fuels for maximum impact. Ammonia and hydrogen are
entirely carbon free fuels that do not emit CO2.
i
Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 13
Marine engine technology ................................................................................................... 14
Marine engine applications .............................................................................................. 14
Specification of engines ................................................................................................... 14
2-stroke engines .............................................................................................................. 15
2-stroke Dual-fuel engines ........................................................................................... 15
2-stroke Dual-fuel engines with high-pressure injection................................................ 16
2-stroke Dual-fuel engines with low-pressure injection ................................................. 16
Low speed Dual-Fuel engines for large ships............................................................... 17
Future 2-stroke multifuel engines ................................................................................. 20
4-stroke marine engines .................................................................................................. 27
4-stroke Dual-fuel engines for LNG .............................................................................. 27
4-stroke LNG monofuel engines ................................................................................... 27
4-stroke engines for methanol ...................................................................................... 28
Fishing vessels and cargo ships in China ........................................................................ 28
Fishing Vessels ............................................................................................................ 28
Inland and Coastal Cargo Ships................................................................................... 29
Coastal Port and Inland Lake Port ............................................................................... 31
Inland Waterway .......................................................................................................... 31
Traffic Capacity, Comprehensive Passenger And Freight Capacity.............................. 32
Chemical Transport Capacity of Coastal Shipping ....................................................... 33
Chemical Transport Capacity of Inland Waterway Shipping ......................................... 33
Marine Fuel standard for China .................................................................................... 33
Emission Regulations in China..................................................................................... 34
Regulation of SOX and NOX from ships ............................................................................... 36
Environmental and health effects of sulfur and nitrogen dioxide ...................................... 36
Historical development in marine emission regulation ..................................................... 36
ECA zones ...................................................................................................................... 37
Sulfur regulation .............................................................................................................. 37
Fuel switch-over ........................................................................................................... 38
Carriage ban ................................................................................................................ 38
NOX regulation ................................................................................................................. 39
The North American NOX ECA ..................................................................................... 39
3
The North Sea and Baltic Sea NOX ECA ...................................................................... 40
Impact of the NOX and SOX regulations............................................................................... 41
Impact of the NOX regulation ........................................................................................... 41
Statistics for Tier III compliant 2-stroke engines ........................................................... 41
Tier II and Tier III mode operation ................................................................................ 42
Local regulations .......................................................................................................... 42
Impact of sulfur regulation ............................................................................................... 43
Fuel oil consumption change from 2019 to 2020 .......................................................... 43
Increased use of LNG as marine fuel .............................................................................. 44
Impact of particulate matter, soot, and Black Carbon regulation .......................................... 45
Regulation of particulate matter ....................................................................................... 45
EU stage regulation for Inland Waterways ................................................................... 45
US EPA regulation ....................................................................................................... 45
IMO regulation ............................................................................................................. 45
Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas regulation.......................................................... 46
FuelEU Maritime regulation .......................................................................................... 46
Solutions for NOX control..................................................................................................... 47
EGR – exhaust gas recirculation ..................................................................................... 47
SCR – Selective Catalytic Reduction ............................................................................... 47
Background.................................................................................................................. 47
Operating principle ....................................................................................................... 48
Efficiency ..................................................................................................................... 48
SCR on 2-stroke engines ............................................................................................. 48
SCR on 4-stroke engines ............................................................................................. 48
Ammonia bisulfate (ABS) formation ............................................................................. 49
Urea crystallization....................................................................................................... 49
Certification of SCR solutions....................................................................................... 50
International Association for Catalytic Control of Ship Emissions to Air ........................ 50
Solutions for sulfur control ................................................................................................... 51
SOx Scrubbers................................................................................................................. 51
Operating principles ..................................................................................................... 51
Efficiency against pollutants ......................................................................................... 52
Business case considerations for scrubbers ................................................................ 52
Economy of scrubber installation ................................................................................. 52
The development and adoption of scrubbers for ships ................................................. 54
The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 4
Important milestones motivating new scrubber installations ......................................... 54
Use of scrubbers on different ship types .......................................................................... 55
Scrubber technologies in use ....................................................................................... 56
Scrubber market actors ................................................................................................ 57
Exhaust Gas Cleaning Association .............................................................................. 57
Black Carbon reduction ....................................................................................................... 58
Particulate filters for marine applications ............................................................................. 63
Particulate filter technologies ........................................................................................... 63
Ceramic wall flow filters................................................................................................ 63
Fiber filters ................................................................................................................... 63
Partial or open filters .................................................................................................... 63
Regeneration ................................................................................................................... 63
Fuel sulfur tolerance ........................................................................................................ 63
Ash accumulation ............................................................................................................ 64
Back pressure limitations ................................................................................................. 64
Particulate filters available for 4-stroke marine engines ................................................... 65
Operating experience with particulate filters on ships ...................................................... 65
Control of GHGs and other emissions simultaneously......................................................... 66
CO2 capture on board ships............................................................................................. 70
Advanced biofuels and LCA ................................................................................................ 71
Bio-intermediate Studies ................................................................................................. 72
Biodiesel Studies ............................................................................................................. 74
Modeling Support ............................................................................................................ 76
Life Cycle Analysis with the GREET Model ..................................................................... 76
Fuel options for short sea shipping...................................................................................... 79
Fuels and technologies investigated ................................................................................ 79
Technology readiness ..................................................................................................... 79
Long term tests................................................................................................................ 81
HVO ............................................................................................................................. 81
Methanol ...................................................................................................................... 81
Ethanol ........................................................................................................................ 81
LBG/CBG ..................................................................................................................... 81
Ammonia...................................................................................................................... 81
Hydrogen ..................................................................................................................... 81
Electricity ..................................................................................................................... 81
Costs ........................................................................................................................... 82
Effects and impacts ......................................................................................................... 82
Methanol in marine engines ................................................................................................ 84
2-stroke engine designs for methanol .............................................................................. 84
4-stroke engine designs for methanol .............................................................................. 84
Emissions from combustion of methanol ......................................................................... 85
Unregulated emissions from methanol ......................................................................... 85
Methanol powered ships .................................................................................................. 86
New 4-stroke design with low compression ..................................................................... 87
Methanol production, use and safety................................................................................... 88
AMF TCP Task 56 report in marine methanol .................................................................. 88
Production ....................................................................................................................... 88
Methanol infrastructure .................................................................................................... 89
Methanol engines for ships .............................................................................................. 89
Pollutants and climate emissions ..................................................................................... 90
Safety .............................................................................................................................. 91
Research projects ........................................................................................................... 91
Methanol and other alternatives for smaller ships ............................................................ 92
Application Technology of Methanol Fuel for Marine Power ......................................... 92
Application Technology of Methanol Fuel in Spark Ignition Engines ............................. 92
Diesel/Methanol Binary Combustion Technology ......................................................... 93
Characteristics of Diesel / Methanol Binary Fuel Combustion Mode............................. 93
Emission Control of Methanol / Diesel Dual Fuel Engine.............................................. 94
Methanol Fuel Cell........................................................................................................... 94
Online Hydrogen Production by Methanol Water Reforming ............................................ 96
Comparison between methanol fuel and other fuels used in ship power .......................... 96
Comparison of Application Technology Schemes ............................................................ 97
Exhaust Greenhouse Gas Comparison ........................................................................... 99
Fuel Safety Comparison .................................................................................................. 99
Comparison of Fuel Reserves for Building New Ships ................................................... 100
Comparison of Transformation Possibilities of Ships in Use .......................................... 101
Methanol Fuel Filling for Ship Power ............................................................................. 102
Refueling on River and Sea Surface .......................................................................... 102
Port Filling .................................................................................................................. 103
Marine Power Methanol Fuel Filling Equipment ......................................................... 103
Supply And Guarantee of Methanol Fuel for Ships ........................................................ 104
Volatilization Control And Supervision of Fuel Storage And Filling................................. 104
Progress Assessment Summary.................................................................................... 105
Comparison of Technical Solutions ............................................................................ 105
Comparison of Fuel Application ................................................................................. 107
Fuel Supply and Support Comparison........................................................................ 108
Adaptability Comparison ............................................................................................ 108
Suggestions and Prospects ....................................................................................... 109
Ammonia as fuel for marine engines .................................................................................. 111
Ammonia combustion properties ................................................................................... 111
Plans for ammonia powered ships ................................................................................. 111
Ammonia DF engines under development ..................................................................... 111
2-stroke ammonia engine development ......................................................................... 111
4-stroke ammonia engine development ......................................................................... 112
Emissions and exhaust after-treatment requirements for ammonia engines .................. 112
Emissions from fuel oil pilot combustion ..................................................................... 112
NOX and ammonia slip ............................................................................................... 112
Nitrous Oxide ............................................................................................................. 112
Ammonia as fuel for fuel cells ........................................................................................ 113
Emissions and after-treatment requirements with ammonia fuel cells ........................ 113
Ammonia combustion in a small 4-stroke diesel engine ................................................. 113
Ammonia in combustion engines ................................................................................... 113
The DTU CI engine setup .............................................................................................. 115
Results .......................................................................................................................... 116
Summary ................................................................................................................... 117
Ammonia for gasoline-type engines ............................................................................... 119
Hydrogen as a marine fuel ................................................................................................ 127
Hydrogen storage .......................................................................................................... 127
Onboard conversion of hydrogen from ammonia ........................................................... 127
Hydrogen as fuel for fuel cells ....................................................................................... 127
Hydrogen as fuel for combustion engines ...................................................................... 128
Emissions with hydrogen as fuel for combustion engines........................................... 128
Liquefied gases (LNG/LEG/LPG) as marine fuels ............................................................. 129
Definitions of liquid gases .............................................................................................. 129
Storage of liquid gases .................................................................................................. 129
Background for use of LNG in ships .............................................................................. 129
State of use ................................................................................................................... 130
Engine types.................................................................................................................. 130
LNG Ready and retrofitting for LNG DF ..................................................................... 130
LNG infrastructure ship types ........................................................................................ 131
LNG carriers .............................................................................................................. 131
LNG infrastructure vessels ......................................................................................... 131
Transport of LEG and LPG ........................................................................................ 131
Emissions and exhaust after-treatment requirements for DF gas engines. .................... 132
Tier III compliance...................................................................................................... 132
SOX compliance ......................................................................................................... 132
PM emissions ............................................................................................................ 132
Methane emissions .................................................................................................... 132
Battery electric propulsion systems ................................................................................... 134
Battery powered ships ................................................................................................... 134
References ....................................................................................................................... 136

List of Tables
Table 1 Smallest and largest 2-stroke engines available today ........................................... 15
Table 2 Smallest and largest 4-stroke engines available today from MAN ES and Wärtsilä 27
Table 3 Composition of national water transport ships (by navigation area) ........................ 30
Table 4 number of berths of 10000 tons and above in ports in China .................................. 32
Table 5 composition of berths of 10000 DWT and above in China (by main purposes) ....... 32
Table 6 IMO emission limits at each stage .......................................................................... 34
Table 7 First stage emission limits of marine engine exhaust pollutants .............................. 34
Table 8 First stage emission limits of marine engine exhaust pollutants .............................. 34
Table 9: Ratio of SO2 to CO2 with 0.5 and 0.1 % fuel oil sulfur content................................ 51
Table 10: Total number of ships (2022) above 5000 GT, with main power subcategories. .. 56
Table 11: Scrubber types in operation and ordered until year 2024..................................... 56
Table 12 Evaluation of impacts of assumed carbon-neutral e-methane, e-methanol and e-
diesel as marine fuels with fossil and long-term references. ................................................ 69
Table 13 Corrosion rate determinations for five steel grades as a function of bio-oil blend
level in heavy fuel oil ........................................................................................................... 73
Table 14 Summary of emissions to air and water ................................................................ 83
Table 15 Current fuel price range ........................................................................................ 83
Table 16: Specifications for MAN B&W methanol LGIM engines......................................... 84
Table 17 4-stroke marine engines for methanol. ................................................................. 85
Table 18 Comparison of various methanol engine concepts in comparison with HFO/diesel
use in marine diesel engines. .............................................................................................. 90
Table 19 Comparison of characteristics of several fuels...................................................... 97
Table 20 Comparison Table of Low Carbon Clean Fuel Reserves for Ships in Use .......... 102
Table 21 Technical Scheme of Methanol Application in Marine Engine ............................. 105
Table 22 Technical Scheme of LNG Application in Marine Engine .................................... 105
Table 23 Technical scheme of marine engine power battery ............................................. 106
Table 24 Technical scheme of fuel cell for marine engine ................................................. 106
Table 25 Comparison of alternative fuel applications for ships in China ............................ 107
Table 26 Comparison of alternative fuel infrastructure ...................................................... 108
Table 27 Comparison of alternative fuel applicability for Chinese ships ............................ 108
Table 28 Viscosity and cetane numbers of diesel and n-heptane for comparison.............. 115

List of Figures
Figure 1 Status of LNG terminals availability 2020 .............................................................. 17
Figure 2 Illustration of the ME-GI working principle ............................................................. 18
Figure 3 Illustration of WinGD’s X-DF working principle ...................................................... 19
Figure 4 Overview of fuel types and their applicability / retrofit ability .................................. 20
Figure 5 HiMSEN multifuel engine (Korea).......................................................................... 21
Figure 6 Torque output and brake specific fuel consumption with ammonia-CNG-diesel triple
fuel combustion at full load condition................................................................................... 21
Figure 7 Emissions from ammonia-CNG-diesel triple fuel combustion at full load condition 22
Figure 8 Brake specific energy consumptions and thermal efficiencies from ammonia-CNG-
diesel triple fuel combustion at full load condition. ............................................................... 22
Figure 9 Scope of marine fuel LCA. .................................................................................... 23
Figure 10 Forecast of marine fuel changes. ........................................................................ 23
Figure 11 Current state of ship building for advanced fuels. ................................................ 24
Figure 12 Pros and cons of advanced marine fuels ............................................................. 24
Figure 13 Engine types for some advanced marine fuels. ................................................... 25
Figure 14 Development of the HIMSEN multifuel engine ..................................................... 25
Figure 15 Injection and ignition processes with some advanced marine fuels ..................... 26
Figure 16 Fuel injector test rig ............................................................................................. 26
Figure 17 Length of fishing vessels in China ....................................................................... 29
Figure 18 Number of Chines fishing vessels applicated in marine and inland waterways .... 29
Figure 19 number of water transport vessels in China from 2016 to 2020 ........................... 30
Figure 20 Navigation mileage of domestic inland waterways from 2016 to 2020 ................. 31
Figure 21: Current and possible future ECA zones. Illustration by DNV GL......................... 37
Figure 22: Sulfur limit in global waters and ECA zones. Illustration from Dieselnet.com ...... 38
Figure 23: NOx emission limit for Tier I, II and III. Illustration from Dieselnet.com ............... 39
Figure 24: Technology choice for IMO Tier III compliance ................................................... 41
Figure 25: 2-stroke Tier III engine fuel design deliveries by year ......................................... 42
Figure 26: Fuel oil consumption reported for ships above 5000GT in 2019 and 2020. ........ 44
Figure 27 Overview of greenhouse gas emissions regulations. ........................................... 46
Figure 28: Minimum SCR operating temperature as function of fuel sulfur content. ............ 50
Figure 29: Business case for a 20 MW scrubber. ................................................................ 53
Figure 30: Accumulated costs calculated for different scrubber sizes.................................. 53
Figure 31: HSFO/VLSFO Price gap development: Source: (Hellenicshippingsnews) .......... 54
Figure 32: Development in total number of ships with scrubbers since 2013. ...................... 55

Figure 33 Comparison of Black Carbon data with emission factors from 2-stroke engines
with residual fuel ................................................................................................................. 60
with distillate fuel ................................................................................................................. 60
with residual fuel ................................................................................................................. 61
with distillate fuel ................................................................................................................. 61
Figure 37 The global fleet includes over 128,000 IMO-registered vessels with engines of
many sizes. ......................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 38 Hydrogen pathways for ICE include fuels compatible with common diesel and gas
engines ............................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 39 BC, NOX and SO2 emissions per MJ fuel ............................................................. 68
Figure 40 Examples of external costs of ship emissions with selected technologies. .......... 69
Figure 41 Pre-combustion CO2-capture concept for methanol ship (LEC) ........................... 70
Figure 42 Bio-intermediate production schematic via fast pyrolysis and hydrothermal
liquefaction.......................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 43 Blend stability test results for CFP-based bio-oil and HTL-based bio-crude......... 72
Figure 44 Viscosity versus shear rate for blends of bio-oil and bio-crude with VLSFO ........ 73
Figure 45 Estimated cetane number results for HTL bio-crude (top) and CFP bio-oil (bottom)
........................................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 46 ASTM 4740 test results for biodiesel blends with VLSFO. ................................... 74
Figure 47 Wear scar diameter measurements for biodiesel blends with VLSFO. ................ 75
Figure 48 Dynamic viscosity of VLSFO with biodiesel additions up to 20%. ........................ 75
Figure 49 Estimated cetane number and combustion properties for biodiesel blends with
VLSFO. ............................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 50 Listing of fuel categories evaluated in life cycle analysis. .................................... 77
Figure 51 Life cycle GHG and SOX estimates for baseline petroleum fuels and biofuels. .... 77
Figure 52 The estimated MFSP versus GHG emissions for the different fuel chemistries and
pathways being considered for fueling the marine sector. ................................................... 78
Figure 53 Technology readiness ......................................................................................... 79
Figure 54 Technology assesment ....................................................................................... 80
Figure 55 Costs for different fuel technologies .................................................................... 82
Figure 56 High and low values of GHG emissions .............................................................. 82
Figure 57: Development in methanol fueled ships. Source: DNV AFI .................................. 86
Figure 58 Results of the 2 MW engine conversion done in Denmark .................................. 87
Figure 59 Test data from experimental methanol engines in Denmark ................................ 87
Figure 60 GHG emissions per MJ fuel for methanol from natural, wood residues, and black

liquor gasification ................................................................................................................ 91
Figure 61 "Jiahong 01" methanol fuel cell powered cruise ship ........................................... 95
Figure 62 Methanol combustion concepts ........................................................................... 98
Figure 63 Toxicity of marine fuels...................................................................................... 100
Figure 64 DTU Test engine set-up. ................................................................................... 116
Figure 65 Heat release rates for increasing ammonia energy, with a constant λ = 1.1 ...... 117
Figure 66 Integrated heat release curves with increasing ammonia energy ...................... 118
Figure 67 Ammonia-slip and indicated efficiency ηi vs. ammonia energy share................. 118
Figure 68 Illustration of the Flex OeCoS test facility concept .. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 69 Image sequence of superimposed, simultaneously acquired high-speed Schlieren
and OH* chemiluminescence ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 70 Combustion chamber pressure and results of heat release analysis of pilot fuel
ignited ammonia vs. methane. ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 71 Image sequence of superimposed, simultaneously acquired high-speed Schlieren
and OH* chemiluminescence recordings of pilot fuel ignited ammonia DF combustion . Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Figure 72 Apparent flame propagation speed over crank angle for different pilot fuel injection
SOI ........................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 73 Optical combustion chamber configuration used for reactive-jet-initiated
combustion investigations ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 74 Korean research program focused mostly on gasoline engines......................... 120
Figure 75 Ammonia can serve directly as a fuel or as a hydrogen carrier.......................... 120
Figure 76 Ammonia is a common and widely available chemical. ..................................... 121
Figure 77 Ammonia was used as fuel for trucks, buses and rocket planes in the past....... 121
Figure 78 Ammonia can be used in dual-fuel applications with gasoline or propane, or
directly in hydrogen engines by reforming of NH3 to H2. .................................................... 122
Figure 79 Some challenging properties of ammonia as a fuel. .......................................... 122
Figure 80 A dual fuel stoichiometric port injected ammonia-gasoline engine. .................... 123
Figure 81 Slow burning is a principal feature of ammonia when used as a fuel. ................ 123
Figure 82 Mixtures above 60% ammonia reduce engine performance. ............................. 124
Figure 83 Mixtures above 60% ammonia lead to higher unburnt hydrocarbon emissions. . 124
Figure 84 Mixtures above 60% ammonia lead to higher NOx and ammonia emissions. .... 125
Figure 85 A working dual fuel ammonia-gasoline vehicle. ................................................. 125
Figure 86 Engine-out CO2 can be reduced by roughly 70% with ammonia. ....................... 126
Figure 87: LNG fueled ships in operation and on order (excluding LNG carriers) .............. 130
Figure 88: Development in battery powered ships. Source: DNV AFI................................ 134

Introduction
In 2013 AMF released its first annex report on marine fuels (Annex 41). This report
highlighted the fact that no alternative fuel option existed without significant added cost or
other serious impediments. Even the preferred fuel, HFO, was soon to be banned or
restricted due to the high sulfur and fossil carbon content.
Recently, however, several new fuel options have gained attention.
This report is established to create an assessment of fuel options that have emerged or
significantly developed since the 2013 report (AMF Annex 41). The outcome that participants
wish to achieve is a better understanding of the potential and limitations of new marine fuel
options. The key question that we wish to address is “How can the new forms of advanced
marine fuels contribute to carbon neutral shipping in the future?”
Advanced marine fuels include, but are not limited to, LNG/LEG/LBG, Methanol, Ammonia,
Hydrogen, and biodiesel.
The participants have independently worked on their contributions and submitted their
findings. Each participant has presented their work program and progress at least once
during the project, in a teleconference arranged by the operating agent.
The operating agent, Danish Technological Institute, has compiled the findings into this
report, which has been reviewed by all participants.
The management of this Task was kindly co-financed by the Methanol Institute.

Marine engine technology
This section was written by DTI, Denmark.
Most propulsion solutions for large commercial vessels today are based on shaft power from
large 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines, with no current or near future feasible alternatives.
This chapter contains a brief overview of marine engine technology, which is useful in
understanding the technical limitations and possibilities in relation to alternative fuels.
The chapter describes operating principles and main characteristics of marine engines, and
the developments and adaptations that have enabled these engines to operate with new fuel
types.
Other propulsion technologies, such as steam and gas turbines, are used in some ships, but
these are not as energy efficient as large piston engines. The use of gas turbines today is
mainly reserved for military vessels, in which the supreme power-to-weight/volume ratio is
more important than fuel economy.
Steam turbines were previously installed mostly in LNG carriers, where they used boil-off
gas for steam generation. The steam turbine technology was gradually replaced in new LNG
carriers from year 2000 onwards, first by 4-stroke dual fuel and later 2-stroke dual fuel
engines, which provide higher fuel efficiencies.
Marine engine applications
Ships generally require power for propulsion (main engines), electricity generation (auxiliary
engines) and emergency power generation.
Since the introduction of the diesel engine for marine propulsion, these power requirements
have been handled by separate engine types and installations. This is still how many ships
are constructed today, particularly in large ships, where large 2-stroke engines are preferred
for propulsion due to their superior efficiency. Other propulsion principles have since been
developed, e.g., diesel electric propulsion, and advanced waste heat recovery systems that
utilize exhaust waste heat in steam turbines or Organic Rankine Cycles.
The engine technology itself has also been developed to accommodate new fuel types. This
development is largely motivated by customers' demand for alternative fuel capability.
The largest recent changes to engines are related to the combustion principles, which are
used to ensure combustion of fuel with different physical and thermochemical properties
than diesel. The relation between engine technology and applicable combustion principles
will be clarified in the following sections.
Specification of engines
The power of a marine engine is usually expressed as MCR (Maximum Continuous Rating)
in Megawatts (MW). Smaller engines used for small commercial and recreational boats may
be in the range of kilowatts (kW) or horsepower (hp), with 1 hp = 0.736 kW.
Bore is the internal diameter of the cylinder, usually measured in cm for large bores. Most
engine designations refer to bore size.
Stroke is the vertical travel distance of the piston in the cylinder. It will in most cases be
larger than the bore, to make the engine more energy efficient.
The mean effective pressure (MEP) indicates the relation between the usable work per
cycle and the displacement volume. This allows direct comparison of engines of different
sizes and at different speeds.

The MEP is calculated as:
× 60 × [ ] 1 × 10 1
[ ]= × ×
[ ]× [ ] 1 × 10
2 × [ ] 1
= ×
[ ] 1 × 10
In this equation, n is the number of revolutions per combustion cycle; 2 for 4-stroke engines
and 1 for 2-stroke engines.
2-stroke engines
2-stroke marine engines are generally very large engines, that are designed for continuous
operation for the lifetime of the ship. The engines are available in a large range of power, for
propulsion of ships of varying size. As example, Table 1 shows the largest and smallest
monofuel 2-stroke engines available from MAN Energy Solutions (MAN ES) and WinGD,
which are the leading 2-stroke engine designers.
Table 1 Smallest and largest 2-stroke engines available today
Engine designation Bore Stroke Cylinders Power MEP Speed

[cm] [cm] [number] [MW] [Bar] [RPM]
MAN B&W G95ME-C10.6 95 346 6 - 12 41 - 82 21 70 - 80
MAN B&W S30ME-B9.5 30 133 5-8 3-5 21 148 - 195
WinGD X-92B 92 347 6-12 24 - 77 21 70-80
WinGD X-35B 35 155 5-8 2.5 - 7 21 118-167
These engines are exclusively used as main engines for propulsion on large vessels, with a
direct propeller drive through a fixed shaft. The shaft does not use gearing, so the propeller
turns at the same speed as the engine. Reversing is performed by stopping the engine and
then running it in the opposite direction. Most ships have a single centrally placed 2-stroke
engine, but some of the large container ships and most LNG carriers are equipped with
smaller twin engines and propellers.
The 2 -stroke operating principle means that the engine is burning fuel with every revolution
and scavenging the cylinder with fresh combustion air is performed while the piston is in
bottom position in the cylinder. This means that these engines provide constant high torque
at low operating speed, which is suitable for propulsion with large diameter propellers.
2-stroke Dual-fuel engines
2-stroke engines were originally designed for use only with fuel oil to be injected at high
pressure through multiple injectors into each cylinder. Due to increasing demands and
availability of new fuel types, the injection technology of those engines has now been further
developed to allow the use of alternative fuels, with natural gas (NG) being the most
common. Many of the existing engine models developed for diesel are therefore also now
available in Dual Fuel (DF) versions, and ships in operation can in some cases be retrofitted
for DF operation with NG.
LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) is the most common alternative to fuel oil. In 2023 it is used in

dual fuel propulsion and auxiliary engines on approx. 1100 ships of different types and sizes,
of which 668 are active LNG carriers.
LPG (Liquified Petroleum Gas) and LEG (Liquified Ethane Gas) are used in dual fuel
engines on gas carriers transporting these gases. In 2023, LPG is used on 77 gas carriers,
and LEG on 19 gas carriers.
Dual fuel engines use three different injection technologies: High pressure gas injection for
LNG and LEG, high pressure liquid fuel injection for LPG and methanol, and low-pressure
gas admission for LNG.
2-stroke Dual-fuel engines with high-pressure injection
In the high-pressure gas and liquid injection concepts used in MAN DF engine variants,
dedicated fuel injectors are used to inject the alternative fuels into the cylinder, while
standard fuel oil injectors inject marine fuel oil to provide ignition for the alternative fuels. In
this combustion principle, combustion of the gas occurs like in diesel engines, with diffusion
flame combustion. The combustion of gas generally leads to very low formation of particulate
matter, but NOx formation is still relatively high and requires NOx control to comply with IMO
Tier III. MAN ES currently offers several types of dual fuel 2-stroke engines for three types of
gas fuels, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 MAN ES engine variants for alternative fuels
Fuel type Fueling principle Designation Combustion principle
LNG High pressure gas GI Diesel combustion process with

injection ignition by fuel oil pilot injection
LEG GIE
Methanol High pressure liquid LGIM Diesel combustion process with

injection ignition by fuel oil pilot injection
LPG LGIP
LNG Low pressure gas GA Otto process with ignition by fuel

admission oil pilot injection
2-stroke Dual-fuel engines with low-pressure injection

In low pressure DF engines, gas is supplied at low pressure, with injection through separate
valves in the bottom part of the cylinder liner. The gas mixes with the combustion air to form
a highly premixed combustion at TDC, which reduces NOx and particulate formation. The
low-pressure DF engine types comply with IMO Tier III in combination with EGR only. The
low-pressure solution reduces the complexity and price of the fuel system, which is designed
for a low operating pressure.
WinGD has been offering the low pressure 2-stroke Otto cycle combustion concept with their
X-DF engine models since 2013. MAN ES launched a similar engine type designated GA
(Gas Admission) in 2021.

Low speed Dual-Fuel engines for large ships
This section was written by WinGD, Switzerland.
In contrast to the projections made in AMF Annex 41, the application of natural gas in the
shipping sector has gained considerable momentum and LNG has become a viable option
for a large range of vessel types and trades. Back then, natural gas was expected to account
for a share of no more than 1% (2.4 MT) of the total fuel used in global shipping by 2020. In
reality, the LNG portion of the fuel used in shipping in 2020 amounted to almost 12 MT,
which corresponded to a share of 5.9% of the total reported 203 million tons of fuel
consumed (IMO, 2020).
This significantly faster adoption of LNG as marine fuel was facilitated by two main
developments:
1. LNG supply infrastructure has been expanded considerably and additional bunkering
facilities continue to be built, specifically along the main trade routes. Figure 1shows the
status of LNG terminals in place in 2020.
2. Dual-fuel technologies have been further developed and rolled out across a large range
of marine engine types and sizes, specifically including the (two-stroke) propulsion
engines used in international merchant shipping.
Figure 1 Status of LNG terminals availability 2020 (extracted from (SEA-LNG, 2022))
In this large two-stroke engine segment, two technological approaches have been brought to
the market by the two main players:
The ME-GI gas injection concept devised by MAN Energy Solutions (MAN-ES) was already
briefly introduced in the AMF Annex 41. Its main features consist in the diesel-type
combustion of gas jets, which are injected into the combustion chamber of each cylinder
around the end of the compression stroke, via dedicated gas injectors in a way similar to
typical diesel fuel sprays; however, applying lower injection pressures in the range of 150 to
315 bar, depending on engine load. Ignition of these gas jets is achieved by injecting a small
quantity of pilot fuel via the backup fuel system. The gas injector as the key element of this
technology as well as the working principle of the concept in general are shown for
illustration in Figure 2. Note that variants of the technology involving adjustments to the
specific applications have been realized with the ME-GIE variant, which is capable of
working with other gaseous fuels such as ethane and blends of LNG and VOC, and the
liquid gas injection (LGI) technologies, in which specifically tailored solutions exist for
liquified petroleum gas (LPG) and methanol, designated as ME-LGIP and ME-LGIM,
respectively. The ME-GI solution has already been rolled out to engine sizes ranging from
350 mm to 950 mm bore, whereas the GIE, LGIP and LGIM variants are still limited to only a
few engine sizes.
Figure 2 Illustration of the ME-GI working principle (left) and gas injector design (right) as key system feature
(Juliussen)
The second technical approach consists in engines operating according to the Otto process,
applying lean burn premixed combustion technology, as illustrated in Figure 3for the X-DF
concept developed by Winterthur Gas & Diesel (WinGD). This concept is based on the
admission of the gas to the cylinder, via gas admission valves located at about mid-stroke
position in the cylinder liners. The gas is fed to those valves at relatively low pressure (below
15 bar) and then mixes with the scavenge air during the compression stroke, until the
premixed charge is then ignited by means of hot jets emanating from (passive) pre-
chambers, into which small quantities of pilot fuel are injected via a dedicated pilot fuel
injection system. This concept has also proven to be applicable for blends of LNG and VOC.
It is available across the WinGD product size range, from 400 mm to 920 mm bore engines.
Recently, a largely similar approach has been developed by MAN-ES, specifically tailored for
the engine size applicable in the LNG carrier segment (700 mm bore), which is designated
as ME-GA.

Figure 3 Illustration of WinGD’s X-DF working principle (Nylund, 2013)
These dual-fuel technology developments also form the basis for the establishment of
solutions for further fuels, specifically including carbon-reduced or even carbon-free and,
ideally, completely renewable ones. Both major engine developers have announced rather
ambitious plans to roll out methanol engine technology across the complete product range
and develop ammonia engine technology for implementation in first products within the next
three years.
The IMO GHG reduction strategy is based on the year 2008’s CO2 as 940 Mt of CO2 and the
same amount of GHG would be reduced by 2050 to achieve carbon neutrality. Due to this
radical strategy, a variety of low carbon fuels are now under consideration to replace current
heavy fuel oils. Since the strategy includes the existing ships and they are hard to be
modified to adopt lighter fuel, a huge fuel transition is anticipated for newly building ships,
and ammonia as well as hydrogen, which are called together as zero carbon fuel, are
spotlighted to have an important role in the upcoming transition.
During the fuel transition from traditional marine fuel to zero carbon fuel, a variety of low
carbon fuel including biofuel are to be investigated to meet short term regulation targets.
Figure 5 shows a forecast of the fuels by which HIMSEN engine is going to be fueled
according to the demand from stakeholders with regard to the marine fuel market.

Figure 4 Overview of fuel types and their applicability / retrofit ability on different engine design variants: MAN-ES
(top, (Bidstrup, 2021)), WinGD (bottom, (Schneiter, 2021))
The third player in this market, Japan Engine Corporation (J-ENG), who is providing engines
mainly for the Japanese domestic market and hence only accounts for a global market share
in the low single-digit percentage range, has also announced its intention to look into future
fuels. In contrast to the two main competitors, they intend to assess the feasibility of a
hydrogen fueled large two-stroke engine directly, in the context of a collaborative R&D
program with public funding (Japan Engine Corporation, 2021).
Future 2-stroke multifuel engines

This section was written by KSOE, Korea
The IMO GHG reduction strategy is based on the year 2008’s CO2 as 940 Mt of CO2 and the
same amount of GHG would be reduced by 2050 to achieve carbon neutrality. Due to this
radical strategy, a variety of low carbon fuels are now under consideration to replace current
heavy fuel oils. Since the strategy includes the existing ships and they are hard to be
modified to adopt lighter fuel, a huge fuel transition is anticipated for newly building ships,
and ammonia as well as hydrogen, which are called together as zero carbon fuel, are
spotlighted to have an important role in the upcoming transition.
During the fuel transition from traditional marine fuel to zero carbon fuel, a variety of low
carbon fuel including biofuel are to be investigated to meet short term regulation targets.
Figure 5 shows a forecast of the fuels by which HIMSEN engine is going to be fueled
according to the demand from stakeholders with regard to the marine fuel market.

Figure 5 HiMSEN multifuel engine (Korea)
As an example of preparation for the fuel transitions, various low flash point fuel and
ammonia were investigated to replace diesel in the compression ignition engine. For the
experiments, 3L diesel engine was installed and gaseous fuels were supplied through
pressure control valve then into the intake manifold.
Figure 6 to Figure 8 show the combustion results from ammonia-CNG-diesel triple fuels.
Both ammonia and CNG was supplied via pressure control valve installed in the intake valve
and the fuels were supplied into the cylinder in the intake process with fresh air.
With increasing CNG portion, the triple fuel combustion showed better fuel consumptions but
slight increase in NOX emissions and CO2 emissions. However, unburned ammonia was
reduced with tolerable range and better fuel consumption as well.
Figure 6 Torque output and brake specific fuel consumption with ammonia-CNG-diesel triple fuel combustion at
full load condition.

Figure 7 Emissions from ammonia-CNG-diesel triple fuel combustion at full load condition
Figure 8 Brake specific energy consumptions and thermal efficiencies from ammonia-CNG-diesel triple fuel
combustion at full load condition.

Figure 9 Scope of marine fuel LCA.
Figure 10 Forecast of marine fuel changes.

Figure 11 Current state of ship building for advanced fuels.
Figure 12 Pros and cons of advanced marine fuels

Figure 13 Engine types for some advanced marine fuels.
Figure 14 Development of the HIMSEN multifuel engine

Figure 15 Injection and ignition processes with some advanced marine fuels
Figure 16 Fuel injector test rig

4-stroke marine engines
4-stroke marine engines are used for propulsion on smaller ships, both with mechanical and
diesel electric propulsion systems, for auxiliary power generation, and as emergency power
generators. Large 4-stroke DF and SI gas engines are also used worldwide in more than 170
countries for natural gas fired power plants.
Engines range from less than 1 MW and up to around 21 MW in power for a single engine.
Table 2 shows data for the smallest and largest medium speed engines offered by MAN ES
and Wärtsilä, as examples of large market suppliers. There are several other large suppliers
of 4-stroke marine engines for commercial ships such as EMD, ABC, HiMSEN, Niigata,
Caterpillar, Cummins etc., many of which are also offering their engines in DF versions for
LNG.
Table 2 Smallest and largest 4-stroke engines available today from MAN ES and Wärtsilä
Engine Bore Stroke Cylinders Power MEP Speed

designation
MAN V51/60DF 51 60 12 - 16 12.6 – 16.8 20.6 500
MAN L21/31 21 31 6-9 1.3 – 1.9 24.0 1000
MAN 175D 17.5 21.5 12 - 20 1.5 – 4.4 18 - 25.5 1600 - 2000
Wärtsilä 46TS-DF 46 58 6 - 16 7.8 – 20.8 27 600
Wärtsilä 20 20 28 6-9 1.1 – 1.6 21 - 22 1000 - 1200
Wärtsilä 14 13.5 15.7 12 - 16 0.75 – 1.34 22 – 23 1500 - 1900
4-stroke Dual-fuel engines for LNG

The current 4-stroke DF engines have been developed primarily for use with LNG. The gas
is injected at low pressure to the inlet ports to form a homogenous mixture, which is ignited
by a diesel pilot flame. Combustion occurs by flame propagation, as in SI engines.
DF engines can operate on fuel oil only, which ensures flexibility when LNG is not available
or economically unfavorable. The DF engines are in most cases approved as IMO Tier III
when operating in gas mode and can be a cost-effective solution to ensure IMO Tier III
compliance in ECA zones.
The DF engine can switch instantly from gas to diesel operation. This redundancy prevents
sudden loss of power if the LNG system is disabled due to failures or gas leaks in the LNG
fuel system.
Some engine types, such as the Wärtsilä 50 DF, are constructed as tri-fuel engines, which
can use both low and high viscosity fuels in combination with LNG. The low viscosity
distillate fuel types can be used for pilot ignition of the LNG and meet IMO Tier III and sulfur
regulation in ECA zones, while the engine can run on LSFO or HFO outside ECA zones.
4-stroke LNG monofuel engines
Monofuel gas engines are using the 4-stroke Otto lean burn principle, in which the load is not
throttle controlled, but governed by fueling rate and charge air pressure. With a lean fuel/air
mixture, these engines can operate with diesel-like compression ratios and efficiency. Rolls-
Royce Bergen is a well-known manufacturer of this engine type, which is equipped with
prechamber combustion. The gas is ignited within the prechamber, where a spark plug
ignites a stoichiometric air/gas mixture. The prechamber combustion produces flames that
penetrate and ignite the lean mixture in the cylinder, which is typically very difficult to ignite
with spark plugs.
4-stroke engines for methanol
Wärtsilä, Himsen and ABC have recently developed dual fuel engines for methanol and are
now offering these in their engine programs. The engines from Wärtsilä and Himsen use
high-pressure direct injection principles, while ABC uses a low-pressure port fuel injection
principle. MAN ES is also developing a methanol DF engine and expects this engine type to
be ready for market in 2024.
Fishing vessels and cargo ships in China
This section was written by ESC of MVPA of MIIT, China.
This research report is based on the actual situation and cases that have been carried out in
China under the overall framework of the AMF Task 60 of the International Energy Agency
Technology Collaboration Program. According to the reserve and future development plan of
methanol fuel application technology of Chinese fishing vessels and general cargo ships,
after investigation and research within a certain range (excluding all), The actual operation
results and the evaluation of its dynamic operation are summarized.
This progress evaluation report is studied and evaluated according to the conventional
methods of China's industry, industry and market demand and application, which may be
different from the structure given by the topic, but the compiler's principle is to compile based
on the principle of no lack of reality and comprehensive description, hoping to inspire and
draw lessons from readers.
Fishing Vessels
In order to protect the sustainable development of marine fishery resources, conserve and
rationally utilize marine living resources and control fishing intensity. As early as the
beginning of this century, China began to implement the dual control management system
for fishing vessels and set control targets for the number of marine fishing vessels and
engine power. In 2013, the Chinese government once again issued <Several Opinions on
Promoting The Sustainable And Healthy Development of Marine Fisheries (GF [2013] No.
11)>, emphasizing the strict implementation of marine summer fishing moratorium, fishing
industry access and aquatic germplasm resources protection, and specifically stating that
the pilot of offshore fishing quota should be carried out, the intensity of offshore fishing
should be strictly controlled, the control system of marine fishing vessels should be
improved, and the number of fishing vessels and the total power of engines should be
gradually reduced. It is clear that by 2020, 20000 marine fishing motorboats with a power of
1.5 million kW will be reduced, and the total domestic marine fishing output will be reduced
to less than 10million tons. The number of marine fishing vessels in China has been on a
downward trend since 2013 and dropped to 147000 in 2019.
Chinese fishing vessels include vessels directly engaged in fishing and aquaculture
activities. According to the total power of the main engine, fishing vessels are divided into:
441 kW (including) or more; 44.1 kW (inclusive) -441 kW; There are three categories below
44.1 kW. Divided by ship length: above 24m; 12 (inclusive) -24m; Three types below 12m.
Most of China's motorized fishing vessels are less than 12m long. In 2019, China's
motorized fishing vessels less than 12m accounted for 78.93% of the total motorized fishing
vessels; Motorized fishing vessels with a length of 12-24 meters account for 13.23% of the
total motorized fishing vessels, and motorized fishing vessels with a length of more than 24
meters account for only 7.85%, including 220,361 marine fishing vessels and 247951 inland
fishing vessels, as shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18.
Motorized Fishing Vessel
8%
13%
79%
24米(含)以上
Over 24m 12(含)~24米
12-24m 12米以下
Below 12m
Figure 17 Length of fishing vessels in China
Motorized Fishing Vessel

400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
24米(含)以上
Over 24m 12(含)~24米
12- 24m 12米以下
Below 12m
海洋渔船
Marine
内陆渔船
Inland fishing
fishing vessel vessel
Figure 18 Number of Chines fishing vessels applicated in marine and inland waterways
Inland and Coastal Cargo Ships

By the end of 2020, China had 126,800 water transport ships; The net load was 270.6016
million tons; The passenger capacity was 859,900 seats; The container space was 2.9303
million TEUs.

Ship No. (left axis,10000) Net Carrying Capacity Ship (right axis,10000)
Figure 19 number of water transport vessels in China from 2016 to 2020
Table 3 Composition of national water transport ships (by navigation area)
Increase over the

Item Unit Data
previous year (%)
Inland waterway transport vessel
No. 10000 11.50 -3.8
Net Load 10000/t 13673.02 4.5
Passenger capacity 10000 60.07 -4.2
Container space 10000/TEU 51.31 31.0
Coastal transport vessel
No. 10352 -0.1
Net Load 10000/t 7929.83 12.0
Passenger capacity 10000 23.63 0.6
Container space 10000/TEU 60.91 -3.7
Ocean shipping vessel
No. 1499 -9.9

Net Load 10000/t 5457.30 -1.2
Passenger capacity 10000 2.29 -3.3
Container space 10000/TEU 180.80 48.9
Coastal Port and Inland Lake Port

Inland Waterway
By the end of 2020, the navigation mileage of inland waterways nationwide was 127,700 km.
The mileage of grade channel was 67,300 km, accounting for 52.7% of the total mileage.
The mileage of class III and above channels was 14,400 km, accounting for 11.3% of the
total mileage.
Figure 20 Navigation mileage of domestic inland waterways from 2016 to 2020
The navigation mileage of various levels of inland waterways are: 1,840 km of class I
waterway, 4,030 km of class II waterway, 8,514 km of class III waterway, 11195 km of class
IV waterway, 7,622 km of class V waterway, 17,168 km of class VI waterway and 16,901 km
of class VII waterway. The mileage of substandard channels is 60,400 km.
The navigation mileage of inland waterways in each water system is 64,736 kilometers in the
Yangtze River system, 16,775 kilometers in the Pearl River (including the Xijiang River
Basin), 3,533 kilometers in the Yellow River system, 8,211 kilometers in the Heilongjiang
river system, 1,438 kilometers in the Beijing Hangzhou canal, 1,973 kilometers in the
Minjiang River System, and 17,472 kilometers in the Huaihe River system.
Port
In 2020, according to the port data, there were 22,142 wharf berths for production. Among
them, 5,461 berths were used for production in coastal ports; There are 16,681 berths for
inland port production.
At the end of the year, there were 2,592 berths of 10,000 tons or above in ports nationwide.
Among them, there were 2,138 berths of 10,000 tons or above in coastal ports; There are
454 berths of 10,000 tons or above in inland ports.
Table 4 number of berths of 10000 tons and above in ports in China
Berth National Coastal

Increase Increase Inland Port Increase
tonnage ports port
Total 2592 72 2138 62 454 10
1-3/10000t 865 6 672 2 193 4
3-5/10000t 437 16 313 16 124 0
5-10/10000t 850 28 725 22 125 6
＞100000t 440 22 428 22 12 0
At the end of the year, there were 1371 specialized berths among the 10000 ton berths and
above in China; 592 general bulk cargo berths; 415 general cargo berths.
Table 5 composition of berths of 10000 DWT and above in China (by main purposes)
Berth Use 2020 2019 Increase
Specialized berth 1371 1332 39
Container berth 354 352 2
Coal berth 265 256 9
Metal ore berth 85 84 1
Crude oil berth 87 85 2
Product oil berth 147 143 4
Liquid chemical berth 239 226 13
Bulk grain berth 39 39 0
General bulk cargo berth 592 559 33
General cargo berth 415 403 12
Traffic Capacity, Comprehensive Passenger And Freight Capacity

In 2020, statistics showed that China completed 47.36 billion tons of commercial freight.
Among them, 4.46 billion tons of railway freight, accounting for 9.4%; Highway freight

transport reached 34.26 billion tons, accounting for 72.3%; Waterway freight transport
reached 7.62 billion tons, accounting for 16.1%. The annual turnover of goods reached
19676.09 billion ton kilometers. Among them, the railway freight turnover is 3051.45 billion
ton kilometers, accounting for 15.0%; The highway freight turnover is 6017.18 billion ton
kilometers, accounting for 29.8%; The turnover of waterway cargo is 10583.44 billion ton
kilometers, accounting for 52.4%.
Chemical Transport Capacity of Coastal Shipping
Statistics show that by the end of 2019, China's coastal chemical transport ships (including
methanol, oil products, chemicals and other goods) had a total of more than 280 ships and
more than 1.12 million deadweight tons. The annual transportation volume of chemical ships
has reached 32 million tons, and methanol is one of the main cargo types for the
transportation of bulk chemicals.
Chemical Transport Capacity of Inland Waterway Shipping
At present, China's Yangtze River system has about 3000 vessels transporting dangerous
goods, including more than 1100 chemical vessels. The annual transportation volume was
about 88million tons, including 31million tons of chemicals.
Marine Fuel standard for China
At present, China has implemented a mandatory national standard for marine fuel oil,
<GB17411-2015 marine fuel oil>, which is applicable to fuel oil for marine diesel engines and
their boilers.
After the implementation of the law of <The People's Republic of China on The Prevention
And Control of Air Pollution> in 2016, the fuel oil for ships in inland river areas is specified as
ordinary diesel oil.
The fuel meeting the requirements of GB17411 is applicable to marine diesel engines and
their boilers, including distillate type and residue type：
Distillate type: suitable for medium and high speed marine diesel engines;
Residue type: suitable for medium and low speed high-power marine diesel engines.
The promotion of methanol vehicles and the use of methanol fuel in China has started the
work of methanol fuel standards. At present, the two national standards <M100 methanol
fuel for vehicles >and <alcohol based liquid fuel >have entered the stage of review, release
and revision respectively. Methanol fuel for ship power is proposed to be implemented in
accordance with M100 methanol fuel for vehicles. After a certain market guarantee scale is
formed, the industry standard for "methanol fuel for ship power" will be prepared.

Emission Regulations in China
Table 6 IMO emission limits at each stage
Emission Limit, g/kWh

Tier Date n<130 130≤n<2000 n≥2000
Tier I 2000 17.0 45·n^-0.2 9.8
Tier II 2011 14.4 44·n^-0.23 7.7
Tier III 2016 3.4 9·n^-0.2 1.96
Table 7 First stage emission limits of marine engine exhaust pollutants
Type Single cylinder Rated net CO HC+ NOX CH4(1) PM

displacement power
(g/kWh) (g/kWh) (g/kWh) (g/kWh)
(SV) (P)(kW)
(L/C)
SV＜0.9 P≥37 5.0 7.5 1.5 0.40
Ⅰ 0.9≤SV＜1.2 5.0 7.2 1.5 0.30
1.2≤SV＜5 5.0 7.2 1.5 0.20
5≤SV＜15 5.0 7.8 1.5 0.27
P＜3300 5.0 8.7 1.6 0.50

15≤SV＜20
Ⅱ P≥3300 5.0 9.8 1.8 0.50
20≤SV＜25 5.0 9.8 1.8 0.50
25≤SV＜30 5.0 11.0 2.0 0.50
(1) Only applicable to NG (including dual fuel) marine engine。
Table 8 First stage emission limits of marine engine exhaust pollutants
Type Single Rated net CO HC+ NOX CH4(1) PM

cylinder power (P)(kW)
(g/kWh) (g/kWh) (g/kWh) (g/kWh)
displacement
(SV)
(L/C)

SV＜0.9 P≥37 5.0 5.8 1.0 0.3
Ⅰ
0.9≤SV＜1.2 5.0 5.8 1.0 0.14
1.2≤SV＜5 5.0 5.8 1.0 0.12
P＜2000 5.0 6.2 1.2 0.14
5≤SV＜15 2000≤P＜3700 5.0 7.8 1.5 0.14
Ⅱ P≥3700 5.0 7.8 1.5 0.27
P＜2000 5.0 7.0 1.5 0.34
15≤SV＜20 2000≤P＜3300 5.0 8.7 1.6 0.50
P≥3300 5.0 9.8 1.8 0.50
P＜2000 5.0 9.8 1.8 0.27

20≤SV＜25
P≥2000 5.0 9.8 1.8 0.50
P＜2000 5.0 11.0 2.0 0.27

25≤SV＜30
P≥2000 5.0 11.0 2.0 0.50
(1) Only applicable to NG (including dual fuel) marine engine.
According to the medium and long-term development plan put forward by China, based on
the development goal of 2035, build and realize the " carbon neutralization and carbon peak"
development goal, ensure the market demand, and have an intelligent and modern inland
and coastal shipping system. Improve the capacity of inland shipping infrastructure,
transportation services, green development, safety supervision, etc., and improve the
navigation capacity of 1000 ton inland waterway. The promotion and application of low-
carbon clean energy and renewable methanol energy as well as the guaranteed capacity for
filling have been significantly improved.

Regulation of SOX and NOX from ships
This section focuses on the impact of the NOX and SOX regulations on existing and new
ships worldwide, as well as the status for use of new alternative fuels which in many cases
are used in compliance solutions.
The marine sector has historically operated with very limited regulation of their exhaust
emissions. Emissions of NOX and SO2 (and indirectly also particulate matter) have however
been subject to regulation from around the year 2000, as growing concern has been raised
on health and environmental effects caused by these emissions.
With increasing focus on and ambitious targets for the CO2 emissions in the marine sector,
new fuel alternatives with lower carbon footprints are now being considered. These new
fuels, however, require new engine technologies, which are still in the early stages of
development and demonstration.
Detailed statistics for scrubber installations and alternative fuels used in this report are
provided by DNV Veracity Alternative Fuel Insight database. The statistics provide an insight
into the preference for and state of implementation for this technology as a means for
reaching sulfur compliance, compared to continued operation with compliant fuel sulfur.
Environmental and health effects of sulfur and nitrogen dioxide
Exposure to sulfur dioxide (SO2) is known to trigger respiratory and pulmonary illness in
humans. It also forms sulfurous acid (H2SO4) which contributes to soil acidification, and
furthermore participates in the formation of secondary particulate matter, which also affects
human health.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) consist of NO and NO2. While NO is not considered harmful, it reacts
with ozone in the atmosphere to form NO2, which is toxic to humans. As with SO2, it
contributes to acidification by formation of nitric acid (HNO3). It also contributes to the
formation of smog and secondary particulate matter.
Historical development in marine emission regulation
From year 2000 to 2012, marine engines were allowed to operate with heavy fuel oil
containing up to 4.5 % (by weight) sulfur. In the same period, EU land-based transportation
and non-road machinery diesel sulfur limits were reduced from 350 ppm (year 2000) to 10
ppm (year 2009). This reduction was at first motivated by insight in the negative effects of
sulfur dioxide on human health and the environmental impact, later by the introduction of
diesel exhaust after-treatment systems for PM and NOX, with catalytic coatings that are
intolerant to sulfur.
Desulfurization and NOX reduction was developed for power plants and waste incineration
plants from around 1980, and these technologies are today effective in reducing SO2 and
NOX emissions on most modern power plants in the EU. While SO2 and NOX emissions from
land-based transportation and power plants were reduced significantly with these new
technologies, an increase in marine traffic soon caused the marine sector to become one of
the dominant sources of airborne SO2 and NO2 in the EU region. This moved focus from
land-based sources to exhaust emissions from ships, and even more focus on sensitive
regions such as the Baltic region and the coastlines in North America.

ECA zones
The zones depicted in Figure 21 show the current Emission Control Areas, as well as those
under discussion. In these areas, emissions of SO2 and NOX are subject to lower limits than
global waters. The limits have been implemented in separate regulatory processes, which
are presented in the following chapters.
The ECA zones regulating the NOX emissions are geographically identical to those
regulating SOX emissions. NOX emissions are however regulated through the IMO Tier III
regulation, which is only relevant for ships that are built after the date of enforcement.
The fuel sulfur regulation applies to all ships, disregarding date of build. It is intended to limit
emissions of SO2 from ships, through either use of low sulfur fuels oil, SOX scrubbers or
alternative sulfur-free fuels. Dates of enforcement are valid for both the North American ECA
and North/Baltic Sea ECA.
The IMO Tier regulation for NOX applies to new ships, which are keel laid after the date of
enforcement. These new ships must comply with IMO Tier III when operating inside the ECA
zones.
Figure 21: Current and possible future ECA zones. Illustration by DNV GL
At the latest MEPC meeting (MEPC 78) it was officially proposed to assign the
Mediterranean Sea as a new SOX ECA zone. The proposal will now be considered by the
IMO member countries, and if accepted at the upcoming MEPC 79, the new SOX ECA zone
can be effective from 2025.
Sulfur regulation
Starting from 2005, emission Control Areas (ECAs) were established along the North
American and Caribbean Sea coastlines, in the Baltic Sea and part of the North Sea. Since
2015, emissions of sulfur dioxide must correspond to fuel with 0.1 % sulfur or less within
these zones. From 2020, ships operating globally (outside the zones) must now also operate
with fuel oil containing no more than 0.5 % sulfur.
The limit for fuel sulfur content in the SOX ECA zones and globally has been regulated by
MARPOL 73/78 Annex 6, beginning from year 2000.
All ships are required to comply with the fuel sulfur regulation, either by using compliant fuel
or by removing the sulfur dioxide from the exhaust to a level equal to or less than that
resulting from use of compliant fuel.
The latest regulation steps are:
 In 2015, the ECA limit was lowered from 1.0 % fuel sulfur to 0.1 % fuel sulfur in ECA
zones. Fuel meeting this specification can be distillate fuel quality, but as such no
requirements are made to the fuel other than the sulfur content.
 In 2020, the global limit was lowered from 3.5 % to 0.5 %. This limit was enforced
after a long process in making sure that the demand for this fuel specification could
be met. In general, fuel of this quality is heavy fuel oil which has been desulfurized,
and often mixed with higher fuel qualities to further lower the sulfur content to the
limit.
The development in the allowable fuel sulfur content in global waters and in the designated
ECA zones is illustrated in Figure 22.
Figure 22: Sulfur limit in global waters and ECA zones. Illustration from Dieselnet.com
Fuel switch-over
The difference in fuel sulfur limits between global waters and ECA zones means that many
ships operating in both ECA zones and global waters will carry fuels with both 0.5 % and 0.1
% sulfur. When a ship enters or leaves the ECA zone, the fuel type can be switched to be
complaint in the ECA zone. This is a standard procedure on ships operating on more than
one type of fuel oil. The switchover must be completed in due time to ensure that residual
fuel with high sulfur content is consumed before entering the SOX ECA.
Carriage ban
To make it more difficult for ships not retrofitted with scrubbers in continuing with operation
on fuel oil with high fuel sulfur content, IMO has made an amendment to regulation Annex 6,
which implements a carriage ban for non-compliant fuels on ships without scrubbers. The
carriage ban entered into force on 1.st of March 2020 (IMO, 2020), two months after the new
regulation limiting the fuel sulfur content to 0.5 %.
The carriage ban mainly supports the authorities in enforcing the fuel sulfur regulation, which
is done by routine inspections to extract fuel oil samples, which are analyzed for fuel sulfur
content. These inspections are often performed on suspected cases, where drone
inspections with chemical sensors or other remote sensing technologies have indicated
higher than normal levels of sulfur dioxide in the exhaust plume of a given ship.
A similar carriage ban for HFO in arctic zones will be enforced from 2024, to reduce the
black carbon pollution in these sensitive regions. Black carbon emitted from ships is believed
to be a major contributor to the reduction of the light reflection (albedo effect) on permanent
ice covers, which accelerates the melting of these ice covers as the ice absorbs more heat
from the sun rather than reflecting it.
NOX regulation
NOX is regulated through the MARPOL 1973/1978 convention Annex VI: Prevention of Air
Pollution from Ships.
The regulation has been made in three steps, known as Tiers, implemented from the
beginning of 2000. Tier I applies to ships built from the year 2000 to 2011. From 2008, the
regulation was furthermore applied to engines on ships built between 1990 and 2000, with
more than 90 L of displacement per cylinder and more than 5 MW output, subject to
availability of approved engine upgrade kits. Tier II applies to new ships built from 2011,
operating in global waters. This emission limit could be reached with improved engine
technology and combustion optimization. Tier III applies to new ships operating within the
designated ECA zones, with implementation dates as described below.
 For the ECA zones in North America and US Caribbean Sea, IMO Tier III entered
into force on January 1.st, 2016, for ships keel laid after this date.
 For the ECA zones in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, IMO Tier III entered into
force on January 1.st, 2021, for ships keel laid after this date.
¨
Figure 23: NOx emission limit for Tier I, II and III. Illustration from Dieselnet.com
The North American NOX ECA

IMO Tier III regulations were first enforced for new ships operating in the North American
ECA from 2016. Although it was expected that this would lead to a growing number of ships
with SCR, the reality was that new ships would be built to operate in other parts of the world,
where the global NOX regulations (Tier II) were sufficient. The US ECA region was instead
served with existing ships, while new ships would be used for other regions to avoid the Tier
III compliance requirement in the US ECA. This challenged the ambition of NOX reduction.
The North Sea and Baltic Sea NOX ECA
The North Sea and Baltic ECA zones for IMO Tier III compliance entered into force from
January 2021, five years after the North American ECA. The NOX ECA zones were originally
intended to be enforced simultaneously in both the North American and Baltic/North Sea, but
the latter was postponed five years as a direct consequence of a protest from the Russian
Federation, which was supported by 6 other EU countries (Transport & Environment, 2016).
The main arguments against were that the technology was not sufficiently developed or
available.

Impact of the NOX and SOX regulations
The regulation of emissions from marine engines has resulted in the development of specific
technologies that enable compliance of the existing engine technologies with advanced
aftertreatment systems for reduction of SO2 and NOX.
The regulations have also acted as a motivation for an increased use of LNG as an
alternative fuel. In many cases, LNG can be used in solutions that comply with both the
sulfur and NOX regulations.
With increasing focus on CO2 emissions, marine engines are now also being developed for
future fuels such as methanol and ammonia, which has the potential of reducing emissions
of particulate matter and black carbon as well.
Impact of the NOX regulation
The most notable impact from the regulation of NOX has been the development and
implementation of EGR and SCR solutions for exhaust after-treatment. These technical
solutions can reduce the NOX in the exhaust gas from 2-stroke engines with approx. 80 %
compared to Tier II levels. While 4-stroke engines can generally only be Tier III compliant
with SCR, or in DF operation with LNG as fuel, 2-stroke engines can be constructed to
comply with the Tier III regulation with several technical solutions and alternative fuels.
Statistics for Tier III compliant 2-stroke engines
MAN ES, which has a leading market position for 2-stroke engine sales, has provided
statistics from their reference list for 2-stroke engine deliveries, which include detailed
information on the Tier level, fuel technology, and emission control technology. Data from
this reference list is used to illustrate the development in Tier III engine deliveries and the
technologies used for these engines, as well as deliveries of new engines for LNG.
Figure 24 displays the development in Tier III engines delivered from 2015, including
ordered engines to be delivered. Most Tier III compliant engines delivered from MAN ES are
equipped with high-pressure SCR (HPSCR), which indicate that these engines are intended
or prepared to operate with fuel oil containing more than 0.1 % sulfur. The second most
common solution is EGR (all variants), which is not sensitive to fuel sulfur content. The low
share of low-pressure SCR (LPSCR) indicates that only a small share of the engines
delivered are intended solely for ULSFO (0.1 % sulfur) or LNG.
Figure 24: Technology choice for IMO Tier III compliance

Figure 25 show the share of Tier III engines delivered for alternative fuels compared to fuel
oil, from 2015 and including ordered engines. The figure shows that the market share for DF
gas engines has grown very rapidly in 2022, and that methanol engines have become visible
in the sales statistics. A total of 24 DF engines for methanol have been delivered to and
including 2022, and 44 additional methanol DF engines are to be delivered.
Figure 25: 2-stroke Tier III engine fuel design deliveries by year
Tier II and Tier III mode operation

Ships are in most cases designed and intended to operate both in and outside ECA zones.
Due to extra costs associated with operating in Tier III mode, most engines designed to
switch between Tier II and Tier III operating modes, with use of after-treatment technology,
specific engine settings, and alternative fuels which act together to reduce NOX formation to
reach the emission compliance level. Tier III operating modes are enabled when entering
ECA zones, in which the NOX limit is approx. 5 times lower than in global waters.
The crew of the ship ensure that the ship is compliant when entering an ECA zone by
shifting the operating mode of the engines, which engages SCR/EGR and a specific engine
tuning that lowers NOX in combination with the aftertreatment system. With dual fuel
engines, the engine must be operating in Tier III mode with LNG or any other fuel which
makes it compliant with Tier III.
Only ships which are built for lifetime operation outside the ECA zones are constructed
without Tier III engines. These constitute a minor part of all ships, as reflected by the
statistics for 2-stroke engines Tier III compliance in Figure 24.
Local regulations
The increasing awareness of the environmental and human effects of NOX has resulted in
national policies and incentives independent of the IMO regulation.
An example of such a policy is the Norwegian NOX fund, which collects NOX taxes for ships
operating in the national waters of Norway and use this to fund initiatives that reduce NOX.
This has resulted in subsidies for construction of many LNG ships, as well as SCR
installations. LNG is strongly supported in Norway due to the availability of LNG from the
large refining facilities on the Norwegian coast, along with a well-established infrastructure
and bunkering facilities for LNG.
Other countries seek to reward ships which are Tier III compliant through differentiating

harbor taxes. As an example, Sweden has introduced this for some of their large harbors.
Ships that can document their NOX emission reductions are given a reduction in harbor
taxes.
Impact of sulfur regulation
As consequence of the sulfur regulation, ship owners have been forced to choose between
using compliant fuel oil or installing Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (ECGS, commonly
named scrubbers). Since around 2012 (Flex LNG Ltd., 2021), a third option when ordering
new ships has been to use LNG as fuel, which automatically meets the regulation demand.
Compliant fuel oils are commonly named “very low sulfur fuel oil” (VLSFO), which may
contain up to 0.5 % sulfur, and “ultra-low sulfur fuel oil (ULSFO), which may contain up to 0.1
% sulfur. Alternative fuels such as LNG, LEG, LPG and methanol are always compliant, as
they do not contain any fuel sulfur.
The alternative to use of compliant fuel oils is to use SO2 scrubbers to remove the sulfur
from the exhaust gas. The latest tightening of the sulfur cap to 0.5 % in 2020 has forced
many ship owners with fleets in deep sea shipping operation to consider the choice between
scrubber solutions and the more expensive VLSFO. Switching to VLSFO increases the fuel
costs and makes the operator fully dependent on the availability of VLSFO. Scrubbers on the
other hand allow the ships to continue operation with HFO, but the investment in scrubber
installations is considerable, including lost revenue from transportation, and the risk of losing
market shares.
Fuel oil consumption change from 2019 to 2020
The regulation has resulted in a large increase in demand for light fuel oils, which is reflected
in consumption data gathered by IMO. IMO enforced the collection of fuel consumption data
by the MEPC.278(70) resolution, and reports for 2019, 2020 and 2021 are available on the
IMO website (https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Data-Collection-
System.aspx). The MEPC report on fuel oil consumption in 2020 accounts for approx.
27.000 ships and 94 % of all ship gross tonnage, for ships above 5000 GT.
The fuel sulfur regulation has resulted in a large increase in demand for light fuel oils, and
the oil refineries have succeeded in meeting this demand timely. In general, refinery
capacity, fuel availability and bunkering facilities have been adequately expanded to satisfy
the demand for light fuel oils, such that all ships which were not equipped with scrubbers at
the transition were able to change to these fuels.
Figure 26 illustrates the change in fuel consumption data from 2019 to 2020, which reflects
the fuel consumption before and after the date of enforcement for use of LSFO (0.5 %) in
global waters. It is clear that a very large amount of HFO has been substituted with light fuel
oil in 2020, although HFO still accounted for close to 50 % of all fuel oil consumption in 2020.
The data collected is however intended solely for calculation of the carbon intensity
calculation (CII) for ships and does not provide any information about the fuel sulfur content.
It is therefore not possible to estimate the share of fuel oil consumed which was compliant
with fuel sulfur regulation, and which share required the use of scrubbers in global waters or
ECA zones. The data does, however, indicate that a very large share of the fuel being sold
and consumed by ships is now being refined, which is a process that normally also implies
that fuel sulfur is being reduced.

Figure 26: Fuel oil consumption reported for ships above 5000GT in 2019 and 2020. Figure from IMO document
MEPC 77/6/1 - Report of fuel oil consumption data submitted to the IMO Ship Fuel Oil Consumption Database in
GISIS (Reporting year: 2020)
Increased use of LNG as marine fuel

The emission regulations have caused a widespread adaptation and acceptance of LNG as
marine fuel. Although considerably more complicated in handling and storage, LNG does not
contain sulfur, which eliminates the need for scrubbers. In some applications, using LNG can
also be an economical solution to make ships IMO Tier III compliant.
The introduction of LNG has required a large amount of technical and regulatory
developments but has been an important step away from a very conservative position in the
marine sector, which for decades has been relying on cheap, but also heavily polluting fuel
oil.
4-stroke DF engines with LNG as primary fuel were introduced around 2002 and initially
used only on LNG carriers. These engines were IMO Tier II and sulfur compliant without
aftertreatment, which allowed them to operate without SCR and SOX scrubbers. From 2013,
4-stroke DF engines have also been IMO Tier III compliant.
2-stroke DF engines for LNG became available around 2012. The low-pressure variants of
these 2-stroke engines are IMO Tier III compliant with only EGR aftertreatment, whereas
their high-pressure counterparts require either SCR or EGR for NOX compliance in the ECA
regions.
Today, LNG is a feasible alternative to fuel oil. Almost a third of ships on order in 2023 are
being prepared for LNG as primary fuel. With increasing focus on the global warming and
CO2 reductions, it is however now considered to be a temporary solution for ships, while
production and infrastructure is prepared for fuels that provide a lower carbon footprint, such
as synthetic fuels produced with renewable energy, biofuels and even zero carbon fuels
such as hydrogen and ammonia. The technology that enables the use of these new fuels is
not yet in place but will likely be ready within this decade. The current uncertainty is mostly
which fuels will be dominating the market.

Impact of particulate matter, soot, and Black Carbon regulation
Sources of particulate emissions from land-based activities are generally well regulated
today. Most modern power plants in developed countries are required to prevent emissions
of soot. In the EU passenger vehicles have been equipped with highly efficient particle filters
from Euro 4, and heavy-duty vehicles since Euro VI. Before that, the reduction in fuel sulfur
and the development in engine technology has ensured compliance with the less strict
emission limits for soot, that preceded today’s standards. Most other developed nations
worldwide have introduced similar demands to limit pollution with particulate matter.
Regulation of particulate matter
EU stage regulation for Inland Waterways
Ships operating on rivers and lakes (Inland Waterways) in the EU has been included in the
EU Non-Road Stage regulation (Dieselnet, 2023) since Stage III, which entered into force in
2007. Engines in Stage III were however generally compliant with the PM limit without
particle filters. Stage V, which has entered into force for engines produced after 2020,
introduced a limit on particle concentration (PN) for engines above 300 kW, which
necessitates the use of diesel particulate filters. From October 2022, engines above 300 kW
installed in new vessels must be Stage V.
US EPA regulation
The US EPA regulation treats engines in marine vessels with a displacement volume of less
than 7 liters per cylinder as non-road engines (category 1), and engines with less than 30
liters per cylinder as locomotive engines (category 2). Above that, engines are considered
unique marine designs, which are not covered by EPA regulation, but are expected to
comply with the IMO regulation.
The latest EPA regulation is Tier 4, in which the PM limit is 0.04 g/kWh for engines between
600 and 3700 kW, and 0.06 g/kWh for category 1 and 2 engines above 3700 kW. This limit
is comparable to the EU Stage IIIB (0.025 g/kWh), which at that time in many cases forced
the use of particulate filters on many new machines. It is however possible to make modern
marine engines compliant with this PM limit without DPF, provided that the engines use
transport diesel without sulfur as fuel.
The EPA regulation is a domestic regulation that applies to engines installed on US ships
only. Ships visiting the US are only expected to comply with IMO regulations.
IMO regulation
For ships on open sea, emission of particulate matter, commonly known as soot particles, is
only indirectly regulated through the regulation of fuel sulfur in MARPOL protocol, Annex VI.
Since fuel sulfur contributes to particulate formation, regulating the allowed fuel sulfur
content has a direct effect on the amount of soot that is emitted from the ships.
The lack of regulation can be attributed to a lesser focus on marine emissions, as well as a
lack of technical solutions to effectively prevent particulate emissions from ships. As the
focus on particulate emissions is increasing, solutions to handle this type of emissions are
also becoming more relevant.
The use of particulate filters on marine engines in general is however largely prevented by a
range of technical challenges, which are related to specific engine technology and the
composition of the exhaust. These challenges are addressed later in this report.

Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas regulation
The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) is an IMO regulation that entered into force for
new ships from 2015. It provides a measure for the CO2 emissions relative to the transport
work, measured as the ratio of CO2 emitted to the product of tons of cargo and distance in
nautical miles. New ships will be required to have lower EEDI ratings, as the limit is reduced
from in 2025.
Ships fueled with LNG emit less CO2, as methane has a higher hydrogen-to-carbon ration
than fuel oil. The conversion factor (Cf, tons of CO2 per ton of fuel) for methane is 2.75, and
3.1-3.2 for fuel oils. This lower value will in some cases be sufficient to reduce the EEDI
below the required limit for certain ship types. Future reductions in the required EEDI for new
ships will likely increase the use of LNG, as well as other fuel options such as methanol.
Ships designed with dual fuel engines must be able to store at least 50 % of the onboard fuel
energy as LNG, if LNG is to be regarded as primary fuel. In that case, the lower conversion
factor can be used in the EEDI calculation, otherwise it will be calculated as a weighted
average of LNG and fuel oil capacities. This rule is intended to limit operation with fuel oil on
ships that are originally designed for LNG propulsion, mainly by reducing the operational
range of ships which choose not to use LNG in operation.
The EEDI does however not consider the high GWP of methane. With 2-stroke engines that
have direct high-pressure injection, methane emissions are very low. With 4-stroke DF
engines, the slip can be more than 1% of the fuel supplied and this will often result in higher
CO2 equivalent emissions, which effectively reduces the potential CO2 reductions with
natural gas as fuel.
FuelEU Maritime regulation
This new regulation will oblige ships above 5,000 gross tonnes calling European ports,
except for fishing ships, to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the energy used on board
starting in 2025. This is expected to have major impact on the marine traffic within EU and
to/from EU (Counsil, 2023).
Figure 27 Overview of greenhouse gas emissions regulations.

Solutions for NOX control
This section was written by DTI, Denmark
The emissions of NOx from marine engines can comply with IMO Tier III with three different
basic strategies:
 EGR, which is only effective and sufficient for IMO Tier III compliance on 2-stroke
engines.
 SCR, which can be used for Tier compliance on both 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines.
 Alternative fuel types can be used to reach Tier III compliance in combination with
EGR or SCR.
It is important to note that most engines with IMO Tier III approval are designed for operating
in either IMO Tier II or Tier III mode. The relevant Tier III engine technology, engine settings,
emission after-treatment and fuel types are usually switched from Tier II to Tier III operating
mode when entering an ECA zone.
EGR – exhaust gas recirculation
EGR is widely used for Tier III compliance on 2-stroke engines.
EGR is a system that recirculates some of the exhaust gas back into the cylinders. The
specific heat capacity of the water and CO2 in the recirculated exhaust gas is higher than
that of fresh air. The higher heat capacity of the scavenging air is effective in lowering
combustion temperature and hence the NOX formation.
The main reason for using this on 2-stroke engines is that they operate with a large surplus
of combustion air and can tolerate a large ratio of EGR to fresh air. In addition, they are
allowed to emit more NOX per kWh than 4-stroke engines.
2-stroke engines can be delivered with EGR installed, or partly prepared to have the EGR
systems installed if the ship is later assigned for operation in or through ECA zones.
The implementation of the EGR can be quite complex since the pressure of the EGR gas is
lower than the pressure of the scavenging air. The system therefore requires an extra
blower, in addition to several gas valves that open or close when the operating mode is
changed. Furthermore, the gas must be cooled with a water spray and a heat exchanger,
water droplets must be removed by a mist catcher, and the gas reintroduced by a blower
and mixed with inlet air.
EGR circuits will generally be used only in Tier III mode, but it is also possible to have a
permanently open, but variable, EGR circuit for some engine configurations.
In 4-stroke engines, EGR cannot be used effectively to reduce NOX to the compliant level in
IMO Tier III. These engines must use either alternative fuel (LNG) or be equipped with SCR.
SCR – Selective Catalytic Reduction
With the introduction of IMO Tier III emission standards for new marine vessels operating in
ECA zones, SCR has become a standard solution for IMO Tier III compliance on 4-stroke
engines, as well as some 2-stroke engine designs.
Background
The SCR principle was originally developed for automotive applications, to meet stringent
US EPA and Euro standards for NOx emissions. In the early tests of the technology, it was
found that the fuel sulfur in diesel fuel for road transport could cause problems with clogging

of the catalysts. This caused the allowable fuel sulfur content to be reduced to the present
10 ppm. Considering that marine fuel can contain up to 0.5 % (5000 ppm) sulfur, using SCR
for ships is more complicated, and generally requires close attention to problems related
mainly to formation of ammonia bisulfate.
Operating principle
The basic solution consists of a dedicated SCR catalyst in combination with urea or
ammonia dosing, which is controlled and adjusted with downstream and upstream NOX
sensors, to maintain a low NOX concentration in the exhaust.
The SCR unit reduces NOX in a catalytic process, in which ammonia (NH3) reacts with NO
and NO2 to form nitrogen (N2) and water. The ammonia can be supplied as pure NH3 or
dissolved in water, but the most common approach is to use urea, CH4N2O, dissolved in
water. This solution is sprayed into the exhaust gas upstream of the catalyst. The water
evaporates and the urea decomposes and reacts with water to form NH3, which is adsorbed
onto the catalyst surface. NO and NO2 then react with NH3 on the catalyst surface. The
nitrogen oxides are reduced as the nitrogen reacts to form free nitrogen (N2) while hydrogen
and oxygen forms water (H2O).
Efficiency
The SCR catalyst must provide a reduction of approx. 80 % compared to Tier II emission
standard to reduce NOX emissions to Tier III level, when measured and weighted in
accordance with the procedure described in NOX Technical Code 2008.
The NOX reduction efficiency increases with exhaust gas temperature, as the catalyst activity
increases. Very high efficiency, typically above 90 %, is possible from around 300-350 C,
meaning that the NOx reductions can reach the required level, even if reduction is not
possible at the lowest load under test conditions.
SCR systems are typically only active when the engines are in Tier III mode, as they must be
inside ECA zones. Outside the ECA zones, SCR systems are typically disabled, and the
engine operate in Tier II compliance mode. This saves the cost of reducing agent (urea or
ammonia dissolved in water) and extends the lifetime of the catalyst and service intervals.
The SCR is not effective against other pollutants than NOX. With ammonia as a future fuel
option, the SCR will however be effective for reducing ammonia slip.
Reduction of laughter gas (N2O) is currently problematic to achieve with SCR technology.
The main reason is that N2O is a very stable molecule, which requires a higher temperature
than NOX to be reduced efficiently. Catalyst developers such as Haldor Topsøe and Umicore
are developing catalysts that enable efficient reduction of N2O at normal exhaust
temperatures. There is however a general lack of knowledge on ammonia engine exhaust
composition and no engines with ammonia as fuel in operation, to support this development.
SCR on 2-stroke engines
In 2-stroke engines, SCR catalysts can be implemented as either a low-pressure SCR or a
high-pressure SCR. The low-pressure SCR is mounted after the turbocharger outlet and can
be used in combination with low sulfur fuel (≤0.1 %) only. The high-pressure SCR is
mounted between the exhaust receiver and turbocharger, which increases operating
temperature. This allows operation with higher sulfur fuel levels. These limitations are related
to risk of ABS formation.
SCR on 4-stroke engines
With 4-stroke engines, SCR is the only solution capable of ensuring a consistent NOX

reduction to the levels required in IMO Tier III. The only current alternative is to use LNG in
DF or monofuel (SI) engines, which are also IMO Tier III certified.
4-stroke engines use low pressure SCR systems only. ABS formation is avoided mainly by
avoiding urea dosing below well-defined exhaust temperature limits.
Ammonia bisulfate (ABS) formation
Formation of solid ammonia bisulfate (ABS) in and after SCR catalysts is a concern when
using SCR systems in combination with marine fuels, which generally contain high levels of
sulfur.
The sulfur contained in the fuel burns to form mainly sulfur dioxide. Under certain conditions,
the sulfur dioxide can react with ammonia to form ammonium sulfate and bisulfate, which
can condense on the surface of the catalyst at low operating temperatures.
Condensation of ABS will eventually fill and block channels of the SCR, such that the
exhaust back pressure increases. If not controlled, the ABS will eventually result in severe
back pressure which may cause the engine power to be reduced. ABS accumulation is
however a reversible process since ABS will decompose back into SO2 and NH3 at higher
exhaust gas temperatures. The ABS formation can therefore be controlled either by ensuring
that exhaust temperatures are above the dew point of ABS, or by periodic elevation of
exhaust gas temperature to decompose and remove formations of ABS in the SCR.
ABS formation may also occur in exhaust gas boilers, in which the exhaust gas transfers
heat to the boiler. This may require periodic removal of ABS from the boiler to maintain the
heat transfer at an acceptable level.
The condensation occurs at the dew point of the ABS, which is generally a function of the
species (SO2 and NH3) concentration and catalyst temperature. Formation may occur below
280 °C with the use of 0.1 % sulfur. Figure 28 shows the required temperature for NOX
reduction as function of sulfur content and operation pressure. Below these temperatures,
adding urea or ammonia to the SCR will result in formation of ABS.
The risk of ABS formation makes the SCR solution more complicated to implement with high
sulfur content. If ABS formation cannot be avoided, the crystalline buildup can still be
controlled by periodic heating of the catalyst, which causes evaporation of the ABS. This,
however, requires additional heating in the exhaust, which can be provided by burners.
Urea crystallization
Urea dosing is generally not possible below approx. 230 °C, due to the risk of urea
crystallization before and in the SCR. If the temperature is too low, evaporation of the spray
is inefficient and prevents the urea from being transported to and dispersed onto the
catalyst. The crystalline formation can block the catalyst, which then requires disassembly
for cleaning or exchange of the catalyst substrate, if cleaning is not possible.
Crystalline formation risk can be avoided if hydrous or pure ammonia is used, since it does
not form these crystal deposits. Operating temperature can then be extended down to
approx. 200 °C. Ammonia is, however, a highly toxic substance which requires extensive
safety precautions. This limits the potential use of pure ammonia to cases where such
precautions and crew competences are already in place, e.g., in ammonia carriers. If used
as fuel however, ammonia will also be a feasible solution as reducing agent for NOX in the
SCR.

Figure 28: Minimum SCR operating temperature as function of fuel sulfur content. Curves for high-pressure (red)
and low-pressure (blue) SCR installations. MAN 2-stroke Emission Project Guide, 2022 (12.th edition)
Certification of SCR solutions

The market for SCR is currently supplied by a range of individual companies which are often
specialized in catalyst technology. Engine designers cooperate with these suppliers to
implement the SCR solutions on their engines.
The standard procedure for certification of a Tier III compliant engine is to demonstrate
compliance in a test bench with the engine and SCR/EGR together. When type approved,
engines in the same family can be sold with these systems as Tier III complaint. IAPP is
issued after checking of parameters onboard according to NOX technical Code 2008.
Alternatively, SCR systems can be developed and tested in small scale in a separate setup
under realistic operating conditions and then scaled up to full size for combination with a
given engine. Tier III compliance is then demonstrated onboard the ship according to the
verification procedure provided in NOX Technical Code 2008. This approach provides a
faster path for IMO Tier III approval in the IAPP certificate.
International Association for Catalytic Control of Ship Emissions to Air
This association with the abbreviation (IACCSEA) is an association of member organisations
with common and shared interests in reducing NOX emissions from marine engines through
selective catalytic reduction technologies. Members include industrial manufacturers and
vendors of the SCR technology. The web site www.iaccsea.com provides some valuable
insights in the early year’s experiences with implementation of SCR for IMO Tier III NOX
compliance.

Solutions for sulfur control
This section was written by DTI, Denmark
The emission of sulfur dioxide caused by use of fuel oil in marine engines is regulated by
MARPOL 1973/78 Annex VI. Amendments to this convention have made it possible to
comply with regulation in two ways.
 Use of fuels with compliant levels of fuel sulfur
 Removal of sulfur from exhaust gas, to reach same levels as with compliant fuels.
The compliant concentrations for fuels are 0.5 % in global waters and 0.1 % in ECA zones.
Alternative fuels such as LNG, LPG, LEG and methanol do not contain any fuel sulfur and
may be used in solutions for sulfur compliance.
If the fuel used is not compliant in the ECA or globally, SOX scrubber must be used to reduce
the SO2 concentration in the exhaust gas. There are a variety of technical variations for
scrubbers, but they all have the same performance requirement.
This chapter contains statistics for scrubbers, which have been found in the DNV Alternative
Fuel Insight.
SOx Scrubbers
The scrubber must reduce the SO2 content as measured in the exhaust after the scrubber,
to a level equal to or less than that which results from use of low sulfur fuel oil. The exhaust
SO2 concentration relative to CO2 concentration must be below that in Table 9, which
corresponds to the expected SO2 concentration when using compliant fuel oil without
scrubber.
Table 9: Ratio of SO2 to CO2 with 0.5 and 0.1 % fuel oil sulfur content
Allowed fuel oil sulfur content (% m/m) Ratio emission SO2 (ppm)/CO2 (% v/v)
0.5 21.7
0.1 4.3
Operating principles
Marine scrubbers are in many cases constructed with vertical spray towers, in which the
exhaust gas passes through a spray of droplets that absorb and react with the SO2. Other
types exist, but the spray tower is the dominating type.
Open loop scrubbers use sea water to wash out the SO2 from the exhaust gas. After passing
through the scrubber, the sea water is diluted with fresh seawater to comply with the IMO
regulation for pollutant concentration in wastewater, before being discharged back to the
sea. The discharge water is however generally believed to be harmful to sensitive
ecosystems such as in near coastal waters and near harbors, which means that many states
have banned the use of open loop scrubbers in their territorial waters. Closed loop scrubbers
must instead be used.
Closed loop scrubbers utilize seawater with alkaline additives to reduce the SO2 in the
exhaust, by proper adjustment of process water alkalinity. The additives may be sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) or magnesium hydroxide (MgOH). The closed loop scrubber system
continuously filtrates the process water to separate the sludge, which is held onboard for

disposal at port stay.
Hybrid scrubbers can switch between open and closed loop scrubbing, as required to
comply with changing regulations along the route. This reduces the requirement for storage
of accumulated sludge and alkaline reagents, as well as costs for waste treating and
disposal.
Efficiency against pollutants
Besides the intended removal of SO2, scrubbers are also capable of reducing the emission
of other pollutants in the exhaust gas, such as particulate (solid) matter, hydrocarbons and
even NO2, which is dissolved in water. There are however no regulations concerning these
specific pollutants, and the fact that the scrubber can reduce them can only be considered
an added benefit of the system, with very low associated costs.
The efficiency against particulate matter, and specifically black carbon, is considered to be
limited (Controlling emissions from an ocean-going container vessel with a wet scrubber
system https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.121323) with wet scrubber designs.
Business case considerations for scrubbers
Considerations for use of scrubbers versus compliant fuels have been a very large dilemma
for ship owners in recent years. Most concerns are related to the business case for each
option, with many variables and large uncertainties affecting the outcome of the calculations.
Uncertainties concerning the fuel price development and in particular the price gap between
VLSFO/ULSFO and HFO has made it difficult to predict if a scrubber solution improves the
economy of operation. It is also important to note that scrubber installations are mainly
economically relevant for large ships operating with HFO, whereas smaller ships will
generally be in a better position with a change to compliant fuel.
Most ship owners have chosen to continue operation with VLSFO (ULSFO in ECA zones)
rather than retrofitting scrubbers. This may partly be due to a restraining position considering
the upfront investment and docking time required for installation of scrubbers. Other
considerations may include the age and technical state of the ships, with newer ships
generally providing more time for paying back the investment. Finally, the environmental
impact of scrubbers has been debated heavily since the first installations were made, and
the perceived risk of future restrictions on scrubber use may have prevented many from
choosing this technology.
The business case for a scrubber installation is generally only considered acceptable with a
payback time of no more than two years (Christensen). This may seem very shortsighted,
but generally reflects the volatility of the shipping market in terms of fuel pricing, freight rates,
contracting etc., which makes forecasting very difficult.
Except for some busy periods during the COVID-19 pandemic, the retrofitting capacity
worldwide has not been a bottleneck for installations. During COVID-19, the situation was
generally worsened by a lack of qualified work forces for retrofitting ships with scrubbers.
This caused large delays in installations, which again meant that ships were in the harbors
for a much longer time than predicted.
Economy of scrubber installation
The costs related to a scrubber installation can largely be determined by installation and
operating expenses, but the fuel price development is a large uncertainty with large impact
on the payback time. The price difference between HSFO and VLSFO/ULSFO effectively
determines the scrubber payback time. In the period 2019-2022, the marine fuel prices and

the price gap (commonly named spread) has been subject to a large variation. Figure 31
shows the development since July 2019. In this time span, the price spread has varied from
around 60 USD per ton to almost 400 USD per ton in August 2022. The recent increase in
spread has improved the business case and created a large difference in competitiveness
between ships with and without scrubbers. The increasing spread is a result of an increasing
fuel demand and fuel price, which is caused by an increase in demand for marine
transportation. In short, this means that operators with scrubbers have significantly lower
operating costs and, in many cases, high revenues from contracts.
A case study performed by DNV-GL in 2018 have indicated that a price spread of 100 USD
is required for a 20 MW open loop scrubber to have a payback time of 2 years (Sandal.,
2018-10-10). Figure 29 shows the accumulated cost, which is highly dependent on the fuel
price spread. The figure also shows that accumulated costs are estimated as only marginally
higher for a hybrid scrubber system than an open loop scrubber system, with the
consequence that the safest choice for shipowners would be the hybrid scrubber system.
However, that has not been the case, as shown by statistics from DNV.
Figure 29: Business case for a 20 MW scrubber. Y-axis shows accumulated operating costs. Source: (DNV-GL ,
2018)
The size of the ship (in terms of installed engine power) is also important. In general, large
scrubber installations will provide larger savings, while small installations may be less
feasible in terms of payback time. Figure 30 shows how DNV-GL has estimated
accumulated 5-year costs for three installation sizes, with a fuel price spread of 200 USD.
Despite the fuel price spread uncertainty, it clearly illustrates the potential fuel savings for
large installations. It also illustrates that the installation expenses are much higher than the
operational expenses.
Figure 30: Accumulated costs calculated for different scrubber sizes assuming a 200 USD fuel price spread.
Source: (DNV-GL , 2018)

Figure 31 shows the fuel prices and price spread since July 2019. The fuel price spread has
been higher than 100 USD most of the time since 2021. Fuel prices were low while COVID-
19 lockdowns resulted in a reduced demand for marine fuels, resulting in a lower price
spread. Before that however, the price spread increased from 200 to 300 USD, peaking at
the time of the 2020 global sulfur cap reduction to 0.5 %.
Figure 31: HSFO/VLSFO Price gap development: Source: (Hellenicshippingsnews)
The development and adoption of scrubbers for ships

Marine scrubber systems have been developed building on the experience from flue gas
desulfurization used on power plants, which have been subject to limitations in sulfur dioxide
emissions for decades.
Guidelines for use of scrubber systems (ECGS) were defined by IMO in resolution
MEPC.130(53), thereby accepting the use of scrubbers as an alternative to using LSFO from
year 2005. At that time however, the global sulfur cap was at 4.5 % and the ECA sulfur cap
at 1.5 %, so using compliant fuel in the ECA zones was a far better option than scrubbers,
especially for ships operating only part time in the ECA zones. Ships entering the ECA
zones would simply shift to fuel with 1.5 % sulfur held in separate fuel tanks onboard, to be
compliant in the ECA zones.
Important milestones motivating new scrubber installations
The tightening of permissible fuel sulfur in ECA zones from 0.5 % to 0.1 % effective from
2015 motivated a noticeable number of installations, such that the total reached 387 in 2017.
Although the AFI statistics do not cover ship size and operating area, it is likely that most of
these installations were performed on large ships operating mainly in or exclusively in the
ECA zones, for which the fuel sulfur limit was lowered.
In 2016, following MEPC 70, IMO announced the decision to stick with the previously
announced transition date (2020), at which the sulfur limit was to be reduced from 3.5 % to
0.5 % globally outside ECA zones. This motivated a larger number of installations starting
from around 2017, in preparation for the 2020 deadline.
By the end of 2021, 4,539 of the existing approx. 57,000 registered ships above 1,000 DWT
were registered as operating with scrubbers. It appears that the number of new installations
will be low for the coming years, which indicate that the shipping industry is currently in a
period with high revenue and a general reluctance to take ships out of operation for

retrofitting of scrubbers, despite a historical high price spread on fuel oil which supports the
business case.
According to the DNV AFI, about 67 % of ships operating with scrubbers have been
retrofitted to existing ships, while 33 % of the installations are made on new ships.
Total number of ships operating with scrubbers. From 2022 confirmed orders
are included
6000
4737 4884 4897

5000 4539
4322
4000
3171
3000
2000
1000 740
242 312 387
38 106
0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Figure 32: Development in total number of ships with scrubbers since 2013. Data from (DNV Veracity, 2022)
Use of scrubbers on different ship types

The DNV statistics also specify the ship types on which the installations are made. Table 10
shows the number of installations for each ship type, together with data for total number of
ships and the subdivision in main engine power categories. Numbers for distribution of ships
have been provided by Danish Shipping, reported for September 2022.
To present a realistic view on the number of ships which can possibly be equipped with
scrubbers, only ships above 5000 GT have been included. As such smaller ships can be
equipped with scrubbers, but business cases have historically not been acceptable for
engine sizes below 5 MW, and most scrubber systems are likely fitted to ships with engine
power above 10 MW.

Table 10: Total number of ships (2022) above 5000 GT, with main power subcategories.
Main
Total number Main Main
engine Percent of
of ships engine engine Ships with
Ship type 10 < P ships with
above 5000 P < 10 P > 40 scrubbers
< 40 scrubbers
GT MW MW
MW
General cargo ships 3,229 3,085 167 0 113 3%
Vehicle Carriers 761 87 674 0 54 7%
Liquified Gas tankers 1,495 518 942 35 118 8%
Bulk carriers 11,891 8,727 3,162 1 1,642 14%
Oil/chemical product tankers 3,802 3,575 227 0 574 15%
Ro-Ro cargo ships 1,265 274 985 6 195 15%
Container ships 5,287 1,144 2,391 1,752 1,023 19%
Crude oil tankers 2,945 158 2,787 0 682 23%
Passenger Cruise ships 344 60 108 176 218 63%
Total numbers 31,019 17,628 11,443 1,970 4,619
The engine size categorization further serves to illustrate the general size distribution of
ships with respect to propulsion power. Only very large container ships, LNG carriers and
large cruise ships have more than 40 MW of propulsion power installed, and about half of all
ships above 5000 GT have less than 10 MW of main engine power.
Cruise ships have a very high installation percentage compared to all other categories. This
is likely due partly to the increased awareness of the health issues related to exposure to
particulate matter, which has been in focus by researchers (Ryan Kennedy) and highlighted
in various media since around 2019. Cruise ships are one of the few cases where fuel cost
does not dominate the operational cost, since they generally carry a very large crew for
supporting and serving passengers, often around 1 crew member per 2-4 passengers. The
incentive for using scrubbers is therefore likely that operation with scrubbers improves the air
quality for the passengers by removing a large share of the particulate matter pollution and
reduce visible black smoke. Avoiding pollution in sensitive areas is likely also of great
importance. Considering the engine power and fuel consumption of these ships, fuel cost
savings are however also considerable, as many of the cruise ships will spend much time in
either the North American or EU ECA zones.
Scrubber technologies in use
The DNV AFI provides a simple statistic for the type distribution of scrubbers, which includes
both operational and ordered scrubbers until 2024. Table 11 summarizes this statistic.
Table 11: Scrubber types in operation and ordered until year 2024.
Scrubber type Open Hybrid Closed Unknown Dry Total
Number of 3,987 814 68 23 4 4,896

ships

The open loop scrubbers are likely used mainly in ships operating in deep sea shipping,
since discharge of scrubber water is allowed in open waters according to IMO regulation.
Hybrid scrubbers allow the operator to minimize operation costs at open sea with open loop
seawater operation and change to closed loop fresh-water operation in areas where
scrubber water discharge is prohibited. The closed loop systems are likely installed primarily
on vessels operating exclusively on routes or in areas in which open loop scrubbers are not
permitted.
Four of the systems in the statistics are dry scrubbers, a new technology in which sulfur
reacts with a caustic powder, which is retained by a filter. The technology retains not only
sulfur dioxide but is also very effective against particulate matter. The drawback of the
technology is that the reactant powder is heavy and bulky, with considerable handling costs
for replacement in harbor. The company Andritz is currently the only company offering this
solution.
Scrubber market actors
The production and installation of scrubbers for large marine vessels has created a large
industrial market in the recent decade. Wärtsilä and Alfa Laval have each supplied around
600 scrubber systems, while more than 30 additional suppliers have delivered the rest.
Exhaust Gas Cleaning Association
The Exhaust Gas Cleaning Association is funded by industrial members. The association
provides a base for knowledge and experience sharing. The association also holds
workshops and presentations on the use of scrubbers.
The website EGSCA.com provides an updated global map with information about specific
rules for use of open loop scrubbers within territorial waters, ports and ECA regions. A
notable regulation which is seen here is the coastline of China, in which it is now prohibited
to use open loop scrubbers in their coastal waters. Besides, many ports prohibit or limit the
use of open loop scrubbers, based on country specific legislation.

Black Carbon reduction
This section was written by ECCC Canada.
In 2020, a literature search on Black Carbon (BC) and Particulate Matter (PM) emission
factors used in emission inventories for different types of marine fuels, types of marine
engines, operating conditions and emission control technologies was conducted. (ERMS
2021)
Along with the properties of BC emissions, their impacts, measurement methods, the
activities of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Council on
Clean Transportation (ICCT) related to marine PM and BC emissions, and the
methodologies for arriving at emission inventories of BC emissions from marine sources, the
results from 17 studies resulting from the literature scan were summarized. A comparison of
the BC emission factors observed in these studies was made with the BC emission factor
correlations in the Fourth IMO GHG Study. (IMO 2020)
The literature search reviewed studies conducted with BC or PM measurements from both
on-board vessels and with test beds in laboratories.
Eleven on-board test measurement studies were reviewed and included:
 Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) + scrubber use
6 studies: 7 vessels (ferry, cruise ship, auto cargo and container)
 0.5% S Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil (VLSFO) use
2 studies: 3 vessels (ferry, car and truck carrier)
 0.1% S fuel use
3 studies: 3 vessels (containers and supercontainer)
For the in-lab test bed studies, data is presented from six studies conducted at key research
laboratories in Finland, Germany, Sweden, and the United States. Each of these studies
used different engines, fuels, and loadings, along with different sampling and test methods
for PM, PN and BC quantification and characterization. For each study, the literature review
provides a summary of test engines and fuels, experimental set-ups, and results,
conclusions and key messages.
Black carbon emissions and emission factors were entered the IMO GHG Study series for
the first time in the Fourth edition in 2020, based on the emission factors developed by the
ICCT. These emission factors have been presented in the overlapping reports by Comer et
al (2017) and Olmer et al (2017a, 2017b).
The methodology derives its basic approach from observations by Johnson et al (2016) that
apart from fuel properties the two factors that most strongly affect BC emissions from diesel
engines are the type of engine (2-stroke vs 4-stroke) and the load (as a fraction of the
maximum possible). Fuel characteristics are captured broadly as residual or distillate.
Filter smoke number (FSN, as measured by AVL 415S or AVL 415SE smoke meters) were
used to quantify BC emissions in developing the correlations between emission factors, fuel
type, engine type and engine load. Ultimately the developed correlations used data from 27
engines from tests conducted by Johnson et al (2016), Aakko-Saksa et al (2016) and the
European Association of Internal Combustion Engine Manufacturers EUROMOT (2016). To
establish emission factors that would be more representative of the emissions from the
global fleet other factors were considered.
The 4th IMO GHG Study acknowledges the uncertainty involved in BC emission factors, but
adopts this methodology as a step towards better understanding of trends:
While the factors influencing BC emissions are not limited to engine type, fuel type, and
engine load, these three parameters help understand the behavior of BC emissions in a
manner that is useful for generating bottom-up emission inventories where these parameters
are known. Other fuel parameters including the aromatic content and hydrogen content also
likely influence BC emissions, but are out of the scope of this study. The BC emission factors
in this study are based on measured Filter Smoke Number (FSN) values that have been
then converted to BC mass using a mass absorption coefficient. While the BC fuel based
emission factors have a degree of uncertainty and they can be improved over time, for the
Fourth IMO GHG Study they are useful for understanding trends in BC emissions from ships
over time. (IMO 2020)
For this literature scan, most of the reviewed studies had reported the emission factors in
g/kWh units, but the correlations mentioned above were based on g/kg fuel. Therefore, the
conversions were made using the brake specific fuel consumption where reported, or the
estimations used by Olmer et al (2017).
Even with the limitations with respect to the BC emission factor correlations comparisons of
the data reviewed in the literature scan, with the emission factors from the IMO can be used
to present a framework for highlighting the main characteristics of the data from different
studies.
Olmer et al (2017) Appendix F, and Comer et al (2017) Appendix G provide a detailed
description of the methodology by which an overestimation bias was introduced deliberately
into the correlations. The justification for such an overestimation was based on:
• Emissions from older in-service engines that may not be as well-maintained are
expected to be higher.
• Laboratory testing was completed under steady-state conditions with constant, well
controlled engine speeds. In contrast, emissions may be higher for real marine engines
under transient conditions with continual changing wind and wave conditions.
• Emissions from modern Tier II and Tier III engines (which represented 74% of the
fleet tested for the correlations) do not likely represent emissions from ships in the global
fleet.
• Variations in fuel quality can influence BC EFs in the global fleet. In general, poorer
quality fuels emit more BC than higher quality fuels. The test fuels available in Europe and
North America may be of higher quality than fuels from other regions.
Figures 15 to 18 present an overview of a selection of the BC emission factor data as a
function of load, engine and fuel type from the studies reviewed. The emission factor
correlations Omer et al (2017) are consistent with the trends observed across a reasonably
wide range of studies, although they overestimate the emission factor values to a certain
extent, particularly for residual fuels. These figures show that BC emission factors have been
correlated with engine type (2-stroke vs 4-stroke) and load, with no reference to specific fuel
sulfur content, and only a group reference (residual vs distillate) to fuel type in the 4th IMO

GHG Study. Low load conditions produced more BC emissions than operating at high load
and residual produced more BC than distillate fuel.
Figure 33 Comparison of Black Carbon data with emission factors from 2-stroke engines with residual fuel
Figure 34 Comparison of Black Carbon data with emission factors from 2-stroke engines with distillate fuel

Figure 35 Comparison of Black Carbon data with emission factors from 4-stroke engines with residual fuel
Figure 36 Comparison of Black Carbon data with emission factors from 4-stroke engines with distillate fuel
Figure 15 shows BC emissions increased after the scrubber (along with total PM) (Johnson
et al 2018) It is suggested that the increase in sulfate species may be a result of a gas-to-
particle conversion in the exhaust, but no explanation is offered for increases in BC. Johnson
et al’s (2016) data for the 2-stroke main engine data show an elevated value at 28% load
(Figure 16), for which there was no explanation available, other than the vessel owner’s
comment that the 28% load point is not utilized in cruising except when switching between
VSR (9% load) and regular steaming (57% load). The data have been presented in triplicate
values to highlight the unexpected behaviour. Johnson et al’s (2019) data for the 4-stroke
auxiliary engine with MGO (384.4 ppm S) are noticeably higher (Figure 18) than the
emission factor best estimate, in contrast to the data from the same engine with ULSFO
(893.4 ppm S) in Figure 17.

In addition to the impacts of black carbon emission factors correlations, several observations
were made with respect to the effects of scrubbers and fuel sulfur content on PM and BC
emissions.
SO2 reduced to below 0.1% S equivalent.
All of the scrubber applications reviewed were able to meet not only the 0.5% S equivalent
fuel requirement globally, but also the 0.1% S equivalent fuel requirement for ECAs, by
reducing SO2 emissions sufficiently, while using fuels that ranged between 0.65% S and
2.77% S. While the reductions were dependent on the sulfur content of the fuel, this is a
significant result in that scrubbers can be used with HFO to meet regulations both inside and
outside ECAs.
Scrubbers may deal with air emissions by removing pollutants from the gas phase to the
liquid phase in either open or closed loop systems. Unless discharges to surface waters are
tightly regulated, the possibility exists of creating one problem while solving another.
BC reductions not clear
With the exception of one study, which reported PM and BC emission reductions
comparable to gaseous emission reductions, BC emissions were not strongly affected by
scrubbers, in fact showing an increase in one study. The increasing trend of BC emissions
with decreasing load pre-scrubbers is also observed post-scrubbers, pointing to the absence
of any strong effect by scrubbers.
PN can be affected by both count and size distribution
Total particulate numbers were significantly reduced in some studies, although PN
reductions did not necessarily coincide with PM2.5 reductions. The changes in particle size
distributions are also of primary interest, as they affect both direct human health effects and
the behavior of particles in the atmosphere. A shift to larger particles concurrently with the
reductions have been observed.
Fuel sulfur effects on PM and BC emission factors
Fuel sulfur content is correlated with emissions of PM mass due to the SO4 that ends up in
PM but does not appear as a strong determinant of BC emissions per se. Engine type, load,
maintenance conditions and other properties of fuel, such as metal content, seem to play
significant roles in explaining the difference in emissions between fuels with different sulfur
content.
In addition to the use of distillate fuels, the use of liquefied natural gas, biodiesel, HVO,
methanol, hydrogen, ammonia have the potential to reduce black carbon emissions from
marine vessels.
REFERENCES used in this section:
(Aakko-Saksa, 2016) , (Comer, 2017), (Karman, 2020), (EUROMOT, 2016), (Gysel, 2017),
(IMO, Fourth IMO GHG Study 2020 – Final report, MEPC 75/7/15,, 2020), (Johnson K. M.,
2016), (Johnson K. M., 2018), (Johnson K. P.-P., 2019), (Olmer N. B., 2017), (Olmer N. e.,
2017), (Winnes, Moldanová, Anderson, & Fridell, 2016), (Zetterdahl M., 2016).

Particulate filters for marine applications
Emissions of particulate matter (PM) from ships, including black carbon (BC), constitute a
significant contribution to air pollution. This pollution has negative effects on human health,
especially in coastal waters and near cities.
Due to the composition of residual fuel oils with high sulfur concentrations traditionally used
in shipping exhaust gas, it is however a problem which is difficult to solve with technologies
used for road and non-road applications.
The use of low sulfur distillate fuels and alternative fuels such as LNG greatly reduces the
particulate matter formation and may allow for the use of high efficiency particulate filters to
be used on ships on which the air quality is of high importance.
Particulate filter technologies
Ceramic wall flow filters
The most common technology today in use for vehicles is the closed filter type, technically
named wall-flow filters. These filters are made of porous ceramic materials (either silicon
carbide or cordierite), which are extruded to form monoliths with channels. By blocking
channels in each end of the filter, the exhaust gas is forced through the porous filter wall.
Particles adhere to the surface of the channels and the inside of the porous walls, which
creates a highly efficient filtration, from 95 % to more than 99.9 %.
Fiber filters
Filters can be made with ceramic or metal fibers, which are woven or compacted to produce
an efficient particulate trap. The metal fiber filter type can be regenerated by passing a
current directly through it. Fiber filters can be as efficient as wall flow filters, but not as easy
to purge for ash.
Partial or open filters
This filter type relies on particle retention mainly by thermophoresis as the exhaust gas
passes through a filter material with a high internal surface area. Efficiency can be from 50 to
80 %.
Regeneration
The accumulated soot can be burned (oxidized) either by ensuring a sufficiently high
exhaust temperature (600-700 °C) or at lower temperatures (330-400 °C) if the filter is
coated with a catalytically active coating.
The exhaust gas temperature can be elevated before the filter with diesel injection onto an
oxidizing catalyst (DOC) which oxidizes the fuel. The DOC can also be used to convert NO
to NO2, which is more active in soot oxidation than oxygen. It is however important that the
DOC is sulfur tolerant.
Alternative methods for increasing exhaust gas temperature for regeneration is to use an
external burner or an electrical air heater in front of or around the filter. These options are
very energy consuming, and it can be an advantage to use them for regeneration when the
engines are not in use, such that the exhaust flow is not carrying away the energy supplied
to the filter.
Fuel sulfur tolerance
In marine applications, the DPF coating must be sulfur tolerant. Conventional noble metal
coatings, such as platinum, are very sensitive to sulfur and will be deactivated by sulfate
formation, which builds up at low temperature. Other coatings, such as base metals, are
therefore required to ensure appropriate sulfur tolerance. Such coatings are developed and
are available through companies such as Haldor Topsøe, Umicore, BASF and other
companies who specialize in catalysis.
Ash accumulation
Wall flow and fiber filters retain not only soot, but also the ash from the combustion of both
fuel oil and lubrication oil. Wall flow filters used for vehicles are normally able to accumulate
ash corresponding to 250.000- 300.000 kms of use, before the need to be purged of ash or
replaced. With 4-stroke marine engines operating on transport diesel, ash purging may be
required annually, and require that the particle filters are dismantled.
Residual fuel oils contain a very significant amount of ash. Most 2-stroke engines are also
designed to partially burn the lubrication oil that is used for cylinder liner lubrication, which
also results in high quantities of ash, which is caused by the additives used to increase the
base number (the ability to neutralize acid) of the oil. This presents a major challenge when
considering particle filtration, especially 2-stroke engines, since it will require very frequent
ash removal.
Back pressure limitations
Back pressure is the term for the overpressure (relative to ambient) caused by flow
resistance in the exhaust system after the turbocharger.
Marine engines of the 4-stroke design are equipped with carefully designed and matched
turbochargers, which provide very high charge pressures to the engine. These large
turbochargers are more sensitive to back pressure than the turbochargers in heavy duty
engines, which can usually tolerate up to 25 kPa of back pressure. Marine engines are rarely
specified for more than 10 kPa, and often less.
The reason is partly the loss of charging efficiency which effectively reduce available engine
power, but also because the smaller pressure drops means that the turbos are exposed to
higher exhaust temperatures and bearing loads, which can cause excessive wear, damage,
or total failure in short time. To avoid exceeding the back pressure limit, filters must be
dimensioned for lower pressure drops and higher soot/ash capacities, which again increases
material costs of the DPF systems.
2-stroke engines are even more sensitive to back pressure. These engines operate with
blowers that scavenge the cylinders, since there is no pressure difference to drive a
turbocharger when the piston is in bottom position. If the back pressure is increased, the
blower will require more capacity to ensure the same scavenging ratio. The capacity is
however fixed, since the blowers are normally of the roots type, a fixed displacement type
which is mechanically driven by the crankshaft. If 2-stroke engines are to be equipped with
particle filters in the future, the engines must be designed to accept a higher back pressure
than today.
The main challenge for 2-stroke engines may however be to ensure that soot is oxidized,
and that ash is purged from the filters regularly. The exhaust gas contains large quantities of
soot which need to be retained and oxidized in the filter, which is problematic since exhaust
gas temperatures are rarely much above 300°C. In addition, combustion of fuel oil and
lubrication oil creates a very high concentration of ash in the exhaust gas, and this ash must
be purged from filters several times per day. This will require techniques that are not yet
developed.

Particulate filters available for 4-stroke marine engines
Standard ceramic wall flow particle filters can be used on marine 4-stroke engines, provided
that the engines have a low lubricating oil consumption, such that the amount of ash from
the oil does not accumulate in the particulate filter. The amount of fuel sulfur is critical to the
choice of catalytic coating, which ensures that the filter can regenerate under normal
operating conditions. Up to 50 ppm S, standard coatings used in DPF for road vehicles can
be used. At higher sulfur concentrations, sulfur tolerant coatings are required to ensure that
the particle filter can regenerate.
A few companies in the EU are constructing and installing particle filters for large marine 4-
stroke engines. These are mainly intended for use on inland waterway boats such as in
Holland, or other places in which local regulation sets higher standards for PM emission from
ships. In Holland, tenders for construction which include water transportation of materials
such as concrete and cement, has encouraged the installation of particle filters and SCR
solutions as retrofits on older ships, by an incitement structure that awards reduction of
emissions in the supply chain.
Operating experience with particulate filters on ships
In 2014, Haldor Topsøe presented a particle filter system called Eco Jet, which is designed
for 4-stroke engines operating on HFO, at that time up to 4.5 % S. This solution was
demonstrated on the cruise ship M/S Queen Victoria from 2015, with filtration efficiencies
around 80-90 %. The system is based on a wall flow filter with a sulfur tolerant which
enables passive soot regeneration at temperatures below 400 °C. The system employs a
method called “reverse pulse” for periodically purging ash and soot from the filter.
Danish Technological Institute has participated in two demonstration projects, in which
particulate filters have been mounted on ships.
The first demonstration project started in 2014 on the Danish ferry M/F Ærøfærgen, which
had one of two main engines retrofitted with a DPF. This solution used electrical heating for
daily regeneration after the last trip, with engines stopped. The filter monoliths were later
upgraded to include an integrated SCR filter coating, with urea as reducing agent. The DPF
demonstrated more than 99 % reduction in PM, but there was considerable leakage through
filter bypass valves which in some cases reduced overall filtration to less than 90 %. NOx
reduction was found to vary from 40 % down to 20 % during the day, as the DPFs were filled
with soot, and hence this integrated solution was performing much less efficiently than if the
SCR was installed as a separate unit after the DPF, in which case reductions above 80 %
could be expected.
The second demonstration project started in 2017. The first ship in this project, M/F Isefjord,
had its 2 main and 2 auxiliary Tier II engines fitted with catalytic particulate filters in 2018 by
the company Exilator ApS. The ship uses MGO, 50 ppm S as fuel. The filters on the main
engines regenerate in operation as temperature increases to around 400 °C. Filters on
generators are regenerated weekly by increasing the load on the engines. The filters have
been in constant operation with ash removal once per year. A second ship has been
selected for demonstration of a sulfur tolerant system with DPF and SCR, designed and built
by the company Purefi A/S. The system is designed for operation with 1000 ppm fuel sulfur
and the intention is to demonstrate IMO Tier III compliance, as well as EU Stage V for inland
waterways. Due to delays, the system has not yet been installed and tested on this ship, but
similar systems are now in operation.

Control of GHGs and other emissions simultaneously
This section was written by Päivi Aakko-Saksa, VTT. Reference: (Aakko-Saksa, P. T.,
Lehtoranta, K., Kuittinen, N., Järvinen, A., Jalkanen, J.-P., Johnson, K., Jung, H.,
Ntziachristos, L., Gagné, S., Takahashi, C., Karjalainen, P., Rönkkö, T., and Timonen, H.,
2023)
Warning messages on climate change are becoming increasingly serious and all possible
actions are needed to address this threat. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has
an ambitious strategy to cut the shipping sector’s carbon intensity by up to 40% by 2030 and
70% by 2050 in comparison to 2008. Ship emissions have harmful effects on climate, air
quality, human health and the environment. Estimates indicate that shipping causes approx.
250,000 premature deaths and 6.4 million childhood asthma cases annually, since ships
travel near densely inhabited coastal areas. This study carried out by researchers from
Finland, the U.S., Greece, Canada and Japan (see reference in the end) focused on how
fuels and technologies impact greenhouse gas and other harmful emissions from ship
engines, and which are the best solutions to reach the goal of zero-emission shipping. Ship
fleets are diverse (Figure 37), and the optimum solutions depend on the ship, route and
region.
Figure 37 The global fleet includes over 128,000 IMO-registered vessels with engines of many sizes.
A small number of large ships consume over 70% of marine fuels and emit the majority of global ship emissions.
These ships typically have 2-stroke slow-speed diesel engines larger than 20 MW. Medium-speed diesel (MSD)
4-stroke engines consume 19% of marine fuels globally.
The carbon-neutrality of fuels depends on their GHG emissions, including carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide emissions (N2O). Non-gaseous black carbon (BC)
emissions also have high global warming potential (GWP). Carbon-neutral fuels produced
from biomass, waste or renewable hydrogen and captured CO2 have the potential to
substantially contribute on reducing ship emissions. Hydrogen gas technologies, batteries
and ammonia options are not currently available for large ships and their feasibility will be
seen.
Fuel technologies are of the primary importance, when dealing with GHG emissions from
shipping, since the demand for energy in the maritime sector is expected to remain at
approximately 310 Mtoe in 2050 despite of substantial energy efficiency improvements
achievable by e.g. design, waste heat recovery, alternative maritime routes, regional trade,
and shifts to rail cargo. Biofuels could be increasingly directed to shipping and aviation as
road-transport switches to batteries. However, the quantity of compliant fuels may fall when
they have to meet stringent criteria, such as RED II. This makes renewable hydrogen-based

e-fuels an interesting option for shipping along with the increasingly available renewable
electricity (Figure 38).
Figure 38 Hydrogen pathways for ICE include fuels compatible with common diesel and gas engines : hydrogen-
based e-fuels as drop-in.
Demand for carbon-neutral fuels is high due to existing and future emission
regulations and zero emission targets. This is especially true for products resembling
current fossil marine fuels (diesel, LNG or methanol) that are compatible with proven
technologies as “drop-in” fuels. Combining carbon-neutral drop-in fuels with efficient
emission control technologies would enable (near-)zero-emission shipping and could be
adaptable in the short- to mid-term. Methane, methanol, diesel-type molecules are all
acceptable if they are carbon-neutral and meet sustainability criteria. Hydrogen-based e-
fuels could become important building blocks in the transport sectors where other forms of
electrification are difficult. E-fuels could also act as renewable grid storage, thus accelerating
the transition to renewables. However, the viability and production of carbon-neutral raw
materials are limited in the short term, and fossil fuels may be used for longer than desired,
which makes carbon capture on-board ship an interesting option.
The need to remove harmful emissions is emphasized. Emissions that are harmful to
health or the environment must be removed by means of fuel, engine or exhaust after-
treatment technologies. Harmful emissions include nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur oxides
(SOX), which are regulated at this time, as well as emissions likely to be regulated soon.
These are black carbon (BC) and methane emissions (Figure 39). Other harmful emissions
are ammonia (NH3), formaldehyde, particle mass (PM) and number emissions (PN). Black
carbon emission (Figure 40) contributes to global warming and adversely affects health and
the environment. The IMO has been studying the impact of BC emissions from international
shipping in the Arctic since 2011. Reducing emissions may involve modifying the fuel,
engine (or both), or adapting the exhaust after-treatment technology.

Figure 39 BC, NOX and SO2 emissions per MJ fuel
a) BC emissions from marine engines using different fuels and exhaust gas treatment technologies with MSD and
SSD engines at engine loads equal or above 40% MCR. b) Relationship between BC emissions and engine load
for four marine engines with maximum continuous power of 54.84 MW 94 1/min Miller et al. 68.5 MW, 97 1/min
Khan et al. 6.7 MW 512 1/min Gysel et al. and 15.5 MW 88 1/min Zhao et al. All engines were operating with high
sulfur residual fuel except in Gysel et al. with low sulfur (0.009%) residual fuel. (see references from Aakko-
Saksa et al. 2023 (Aakko-Saksa, P. T., Lehtoranta, K., Kuittinen, N., Järvinen, A., Jalkanen, J.-P., Johnson, K.,
Jung, H., Ntziachristos, L., Gagné, S., Takahashi, C., Karjalainen, P., Rönkkö, T., and Timonen, H., 2023)).
Substantial investments are needed to introduce carbon-neutral fuels, but they will also
provide savings by reducing the costs to society caused by harmful emissions. This justifies
support mechanisms and investing in clean technologies. The benefits of carbon-neutral
fuels include lower external costs, and the fact that drop-in fuels do not require new
infrastructure for transport and delivery. Calculations indicate that the emissions from 260
Mtoe of residual marine fuel cause external costs of 433 billion euros annually. Those costs
could be avoided by using modern marine engines, carbon-neutral fuels and the best
exhaust after-treatment options. The external costs are probably underestimated when
considering the recent natural disasters caused by climate change. Marine fuel choices are
driven also by non-technical aspects, such as public acceptance, fuel availability and prices.
Hence, evaluations and solid evidence are needed to guide decision-making towards the
best choices for the future.

Figure 40 Examples of external costs of ship emissions with selected technologies.GWP20 values were used for
methane and BC emissions.
No clear “winning” fuel was found in an evaluation of the three e-fuels (e-methane, e-
methanol and e-Diesel) with fossil fuels and hydrogen/batteries as references (Table 1). The
three options had equal scores for reducing emissions, although scores accumulated from
different aspects. All these e-fuels, or respective biofuels, can be used in existing engines if
carbon-neutral fuel production volumes increase.
Table 12 Evaluation of impacts of assumed carbon-neutral e-methane, e-methanol and e-diesel as marine fuels
with fossil and long-term references.
SOX NOX PM, PN, BC Other harm GHG Score
Fossil
HS 0a 0a -- b --c -- -6
LS +d 0a -b -c -- -3
LNG DF ++d +a,d + b,d -- c - (21%) +1
Carbon-neutral, with renewable hydrogen and CCS/CCU e
e-Methane DF ++d +a,d + b,d -- c + +3
e-Methanol DF ++d +a,d 0a -c + +3
e-Diesel ++d 0a 0a 0 + +3
H2-FC/batteries ++d ++d ++d --c ++ +6
Ammonia * * * * * *
a
Available: scrubber, SCR. DPF for sulfur-free fuels = 0
b
Developing: methane slip control, particulate filter, ESP. = -1,-2
c
PAHs, heavy metals, formaldehyde, methane, infra need = -1, -2
d Low emission without exhaust aftertreatment =+1,+2
e
Biofuels, depending on the production process, may resemble respective e-fuels in terms of their environmental impacts.
LS = sulfur content (S) <0.1%, HS = sulfur content >0.1%
*Not available at the time of writing. Notably, ammonia as fuel is not expected to emit SOX, whereas e.g. N2O (a strong
GHG) may be emitted.

Combining carbon-neutral drop-in fuels with efficient emission control technologies (also for
retrofitting) would enable (near-)zero-emission shipping. This could immediately and
simultaneously mitigate GHG and pollutant emissions. Substantial savings in external costs
to society caused by ship emissions justify the regulations, policies and investments needed
to support this development.
Reference: Aakko-Saksa, P. T., Lehtoranta, K., Kuittinen, N., Järvinen, A., Jalkanen, J.-P.,
Johnson, K., Jung, H., Ntziachristos, L., Gagné, S., Takahashi, C., Karjalainen, P., Rönkkö,
T., and Timonen, H.: Reduction in greenhouse gas and other emissions from ship engines:
Current trends and future options, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 94, 101055,
2023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2022.101055.
CO2 capture on board ships

This section was written by LEC, Austria.
Carbon capture on board a ship is feasible with pre-combustion and post-combustion
concepts. Figure 41 shows a pre-combustion concept. (LEC - Large Engines Competence
Center, 2023)
Figure 41 Pre-combustion CO2-capture concept for methanol ship (LEC)
Post-combustion carbon capture was conceptualized in the FVV-project “CCS on Ships”.

Advanced biofuels and LCA
This section was written by Mike Kass (ORNL); Troy Hawkins, F. Masum and Michael Wang
(ANL); and Kevin Stork (DOE), USA.
The United States Department of Energy has an ongoing research program devoted to
assessing the economic and technical feasibility of biofuels for use in deep-sea marine
sector. This effort has centered on the use of bio-intermediates, which are oils derived from
fast-pyrolysis (FP) and hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL). These fuels are attractive since
they can be derived from a wide feedstock range and are relatively low cost, prior to
upgrading. The work scope for this effort centers on the economics associated with
production and operation, and the technical viability of the fuels along with their potential to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A schematic diagram for these processes is
shown in Figure 42. In summary, bio-oil is produced via FP or catalytic FP (CFP) by rapidly
heating dry feedstock to 500°C for 1-2 seconds. The resulting bio-oils have high water and
acid contents and must be upgraded to remove these components (and other oxygenates).
A key feature of this process is that dry feedstock is required. In contrast, HTL can process
wet (high moisture) feedstock at more moderate temperatures, but high pressures are
needed. HTL bio-crudes also contain water and acids, but at much lower levels than bio-
oils. HTL bio-crudes are also known to have high viscosities.
Figure 42 Bio-intermediate production schematic via fast pyrolysis and hydrothermal liquefaction.
The key technical concerns associated with biofuels are their compatibility with the existing
infrastructure, combustion behavior, and blend stability.

Bio-intermediate Studies
Compatibility here refers to both the impact of the fuels to the fuel system infrastructure and
also the component handling. It is important that any new fuel chemistries (biofuel or
otherwise) must be for stable blends with heavy fuel oils (HFOs). All HFOs contain
asphaltenes which can precipitate out of solution when mixed with another fuel. It is
important that the blends exhibit stability (or blend miscibility) during fuel change over to
prevent filter plugging. For biofuels, this stability is especially important since these fuels are
being introduced as blends with the HFO. Blend stability was evaluated for a CFP bio-oil
and an HTL bio-crude using the ASTM 4740 protocols. A photo of the results (see Figure
43) showed that one CFP bio-oil demonstrated good blend compatibility with a very low
sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO). However, it is important to note that CFP-based bio-oils were not
able to pass the standard test for blend suitability. HTL bio-crude exhibited good
compatibility when cosolvents were used or when the bio-crude was mildly hydrotreated.
Figure 43 Blend stability test results for CFP-based bio-oil and HTL-based bio-crude.
Another important property is viscosity. It is important that the viscosity (or resistance to
flow) of a biofuel must not be greater than the viscosity of HFO, since the fuel delivery
system (especially the pumps) is designed to handle and inject HFO into the engine. Any
viscosity increase of the fuel inside of the storage tanks or heated lines may cause
compositional segregation and pumping difficulties. Of particular concern is the possibility of
polymerization of CFP bio-oils, which are known to polymerize at temperatures greater than
60°C. The viscosity as a function of temperature was determined for bio-oils and bio-crudes
as function of blend level with VLSFO. These measurements were conducted at 50°C and
90°C, which correspond to the temperatures inside the fuel storage tanks and downstream
piping lines, respectively. The graphs in Figure 44 show the viscosity results at 25°C for
CFP bio-oils and HTL bio-crudes. These curves show that the viscosity of the blend is
reduced dramatically by small additions of CFP bio-oils and noticeable reductions occur with
the HTL bio-crudes. These findings are significant since they indicate that the heating
requirements to achieve proper viscosity of VLSFO are reduced with the two bio-
intermediates. As a result, the energy needs are reduced and, thus, overall system
efficiency is improved.

Figure 44 Viscosity versus shear rate for blends of bio-oil and bio-crude with VLSFO at 25°C.
The corrosion rate was also assessed for both CFP oils and HTL bio-crudes. HTL bio-crude
results (while not presented here) showed that they were not corrosive to most steel grades.
However, CFP bio-oils typically have high total acid numbers and the one used in this study
was 112 mgKOH/g. In a recent study, ORNL evaluated the corrosion rate of a carbon steel,
a Cr-Mo steel, and three stainless steel grades. These metals were exposed for 500 hours
at 50°C in blends containing up to 50% bio-oil and 100% bio-oil. Both unstressed and
stressed coupons were evaluated. The results are shown in Table 13. As seen in the table
the corrosion rates are negligible for the fuel blends even at 50%. In contrast, the neat bio-
oil caused significant corrosion in all of the metals except for the 304L and 316L stainless
steels. The implication is that bio-oil blends up to 50% will not aggressively corrode fuel
system metals.
Table 13 Corrosion rate determinations for five steel grades as a function of bio-oil blend level in heavy fuel oil for
500 hours at 50°C.
The combustion quality of these fuels was evaluated using the estimated cetane number
(ECN) test for blends containing up to 15% of CFP bio-oil and up to 5% for both raw and
upgraded HTL bio-crude. Higher blends were not possible due to limited sample quantity.
The results are shown in Figure 45; ECN values higher than 17 are considered acceptable.
The result show that the ECN values for the CFP bio-oil decreased with increased blend
level, but acceptable combustion quality was achieved for blends containing up to 10% bio-
oil. The ECN values for the HTL bio-crudes were also found to be acceptable. These tests
have shown that both pyrolysis oils and HTL bio-crudes show promise as a marine fuel.

Figure 45 Estimated cetane number results for HTL bio-crude (top) and CFP bio-oil (bottom) as a function of
blend level with VLSFO.
Biodiesel Studies
ORNL also investigated biodiesel blends for their efficacy as marine fuels. As shown in
Figure 46, biodiesel (when added at levels up to 25 wt%) showed excellent stability with
VLSFO. In addition, as can be seen in Figure 47-Figure 48 both the lubricity (wear scar
diameter) and viscosity of VLSFO were improved substantially with small additions of
biodiesel. The addition of biodiesel was also shown to improve the combustion quality of
VLSFO as can be seen by the increase in ECN with content in Figure 49. It is important to
note that biodiesel and its blends with heavy fuel oil have been successfully demonstrated
on cargo vessels and cruise ships.
Figure 46 ASTM 4740 test results for biodiesel blends with VLSFO.

Figure 47 Wear scar diameter measurements for biodiesel blends with VLSFO. Results show a significant
reduction in wear scar diameter (improved lubricity) with added biodiesel.
Figure 48 Dynamic viscosity of VLSFO with biodiesel additions up to 20%.

Figure 49 Estimated cetane number and combustion properties for biodiesel blends with VLSFO.
Modeling Support
ORNL has established a digital-twin of a down-scaled, single cylinder, two-stroke crosshead
research engine. A model was developed for biodiesel and a surrogate bio-oil based on
available literature. A key feature was the development of a reduced chemical kinetic
mechanism for simulating bio-oil combustion. The model was validated against existing data
with diesel fuel. This model retains a large number of chemical species for accurate
predictions, including NOX emissions and the formation of soot precursors. There was
excellent agreement between the model and engine performance when operating on ULSD
fuel, especially for predicting NOX emissions.
Life Cycle Analysis with the GREET Model
Argonne National Laboratory has been conducting life-cycle analysis (LCA) studies to
assess the environmental impact of GHG emissions from the marine sector, including
biofuels. These studies have included both inland and transoceanic shipping. The fuel
chemistries evaluated in this effort are shown in Figure 50. They include petroleum-derived
fuels such a heavy fuel oil (HFO), marine distillate oil (MDO), marine gas oil (MGO), liquified
natural gas (LNG), methanol (MeOH), Fischer-Tropsch diesels (FTD) and ammonia.
Biomass-derived fuels are straight vegetable oil (SVO), bio-oil, FTD, biodiesel (BD),
renewable diesel (RD), and biomass derived methanol. Other renewable fuels include e-
fuels and biomass-derived ammonia.

Figure 50 Listing of fuel categories evaluated in life cycle analysis.
An example of life cycle GHG and SOX emissions are shown in Figure 51 along with
production pathways. Here it can be seen that significant life cycle GHG reductions can be
achieved via biofuels (especially with HTL bio-crudes and bio-oils). Less promising pathways
are Fischer-Tropsch fuels derived from biomass and natural gas blending feedstocks. For
the estimated reduction of CO2 and SOX for biofuels, the abatement costs were under
$200/tCO2-eq. This value can be competitive, even when the price of heavy fuel oil is low.
In this analysis, biomass-derived fuels outperform those from mixed biomass-fossil
feedstocks. When the predicted minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) is plotted against the
GHG results (see Figure 52), biomass and waste-based fuels show the best combination of
low MFSP and GHG emissions. These are the fuels of most interest in the near term for the
marine biofuel feasibility study being conducted at the four DOE national labs.
Figure 51 Life cycle GHG and SOX estimates for baseline petroleum fuels and biofuels.

Figure 52 The estimated MFSP versus GHG emissions for the different fuel chemistries and pathways being
considered for fueling the marine sector.
In summary, regulations are driving the deployment of low-carbon and low-sulfur fuels.
Alternative fuels must meet decarbonization targets and the increasingly stringent
environmental standards on SOX, NOX, and other environmental pollutant categories. As
can be seen, the transition to alternative marine fuels is highly complex, requiring a global
outlook and coordination across the value-chain including engine manufacturers, fuel
suppliers, ship owners and operators. LCAs are critical for guiding the sustainability of the
maritime sector.

Fuel options for short sea shipping
The section was written by Trafikverket, Sweden.
The Swedish Transport Administration has within the international program on Advanced
Motor Fuels, Annex 60 – The progress of Advanced Marine Fuels conducted a study on
marine fuels for high-speed engines for short sea shipping. The objective of was to describe
and compare alternative technologies and fuels applicable for short sea shipping and inland
waterway use. Technologies and fuels suitable for road ferries were of special interest.
Fuels and technologies investigated
The report investigates eight different fuels: hydrogenated vegetable oil (HVO), biogas
(compressed (CBG) and liquefied (LBG)), ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, ammonia and shore
side electricity including batteries. The aspects covered are maturity, experiences of long
term-testing, potential for dual fuel engine application, environmental and health impacts,
energy efficiency, risks, cost profile, regulatory framework, manufactural incentives and
strategies for the aforementioned fuels and technologies.
Technology readiness
Figure 53 Technology readiness

Figure 54 Technology assessment

Long term tests
HVO
HVO is very similar to fossil diesel and can be used as a drop-in fuel in diesel engines. Since
2017 the ferries operated by the Swedish Transport Administration’s road ferries on the
Hönöleden route have been running some periods on HVO. The change from conventional
diesel to HVO did not require any significant modifications or adjustments of the existing
engines.
Methanol
There are currently no marine high-speed engines for methanol on the market and long-term
tests are limited to conversions. Since 2015 methanol has been used in converted dual fuel
medium speed four-stroke engines onboard the 240-meter long ferry Stena Germanica. The
conversion has resulted in reduced NOX- and particle emissions when the engine is
operated on methanol fuel. The need for maintenance has also decreased to some extent.
Since the start methanol has on average been used in one of the four engines
corresponding to 25% of the fuel consumption.
Ethanol
Currently there are no commercial vessels known to be using ethanol as a fuel. The
technology used for methanol is however considered to be adaptable for other alcohols such
as ethanol.
LBG/CBG
LBG/CBG can be utilized interchangeably with LNG/CNG. Any utilization of LNG/CNG can
therefore be considered as an example of LBG/CBG use. Today, numerous LNG carriers
have long term and good experience with natural gas as a fuel for the propulsion machinery.
Ammonia
The technology for ammonia is still under development and there are no long-term test
results.
Hydrogen
Hydrogen is relatively new as a marine fuel and has mainly been tested as fuel onboard
smaller vessels. Thus there are no results from long term operation.
Electricity
Electricity has increased rapidly over the last decade and can be considered a proven
technology. The main limitations with battery power is range and provision of shore side
charging infrastructure. In Norway, there are several road ferries operating on batteries,
where E/S Ampere is considered a pioneer vessel.

Costs
Figure 55 Costs for different fuel technologies
Effects and impacts

Based on the technology readiness, long-term testing and costs, four fuels and technologies
were selected for deeper study of effects and impacts: methanol, LBG/CBG, hydrogen and
electricity. For the four fuels and technologies studied, high and low values of GHG
emissions were calculated for different fuels in a well-to-wake perspective and compared
with conventional diesel (Diesel MK1) and Marine Gasoil (MGO). The results show that the
lowest emissions could be reached using electricity and fossil free hydrogen.
Figure 56 High and low values of GHG emissions
Furthermore, emissions to air were studied and showed no or lower air emission than the
use of Diesel or MGO.

Table 14 Summary of emissions to air and water
The energy efficiency was also studied for the different technologies and coupled with fuel
efficiency. The fuel cost and energy cost adjusted for technology efficiency was calculated.
Table 15 Current fuel price range

Methanol in marine engines
Currently, methanol is the most interesting alternative fuel for combustion engines. It can be
produced synthetically with simple processes from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, which can
be sourced from biological feedstock or combustion processes with carbon capture that
makes the process carbon neutral.
Methanol has an octane rating of 110 RON, which makes it more resistant to auto ignition
than gasoline. This makes it very challenging to use directly instead of diesel in unmodified
diesel engines, as it does not ignite when injected under normal diesel operating conditions.
Retrofitting existing 4-stroke engine designs for methanol is therefore not an easy task.
MAN ES has however been successful in developing 2-stroke DF methanol engines based
on DF versions for liquid gas, which operate with high pressure direct injection. These
engines have been available since 2015.
The most successful implementation in 4-stroke marine engines are also using the dual fuel
principle, in which a diesel pilot injection is used to ignite the methanol, which is injected
separately.
2-stroke engine designs for methanol
Since 2015, MAN ES has offered 2-stroke DF engines that operate with high pressure direct
injection of methanol. These engines are available in three versions with the type
designation LGIM, as shown in Table 16.
The LGIM designs operate with separate liquid injectors for methanol. Fuel oil injected
through standard fuel injectors provides the ignition of the alcohol fuel. The specification for
fuel oil consumption is 5 % of the total heating value.
The LGIM engines can operate in IMO Tier II and Tier III mode with methanol. Tier III
compliance requires the EGRTC option to be installed. If the engines are operated as
intended with methanol as the primary fuel, SO2 removal with scrubbers will not be required
for sulfur compliance.
WinGD is developing new DF engines for methanol, which are expected to be ready in 2024.
Table 16: Specifications for MAN B&W methanol LGIM engines
Engine designation Bore Stroke Cylinder Power MEP Speed

G95 LGIM / EGRTC 95 346 6 - 12 41 – 82 21 80
G80 LGIM / EGRTC 80 372 6-9 28 – 42 21 72
G50 LGIM / EGRTC 50 250 6-9 8.5 – 15 21 100
4-stroke engine designs for methanol

Methanol dual fuel 4-stroke engines have recently been approved and released from
Wärtsilä, Himsen and ABC.
Wärtsilä and Himsen have developed their engines with high pressure direct injection of
methanol in combination with diesel pilot injection. These engines can likely replace more
than 90 % of the diesel fuel with methanol from medium to high load using this principle.
ABC engines has chosen a port fueled, premixed combustion concept with diesel pilot
injection. The engines can use up to 70 % methanol, based on heating value. The
combustion principle has some limitations with regards to the amount of methanol which can
be used at high load, as the premixed combustion leads to engine knock which must be
avoided.
The Swedish company Scandinaos is offering a range of modified versions of Scania
ethanol engines, designed for methanol with ignition improving and lubricating additives. The
engine uses direct injection and a high compression ratio to ignite and burn the methanol in
the diesel principle. A fuel additive called Beraid is used to improve the ignition.
Table 17 4-stroke marine engines for methanol.
Engine designation Bore Stroke Cylinder Power MEP Speed

Wärtsilä 32 32 40 6–9 3.5 - 5.2 28.9 750
Himsen H32DF-LM 32 40 6–9 3.0 - 4.5 24.8 750
ABC DZD MeOH 25.6 31 8 - 16 0.9 - 3.5 16.6 720 - 1000
Scandinaos MD97 13 14 5-8 0.15 - 0.45 14.6 Up to 2300
Emissions from combustion of methanol

Methanol has the potential to reduce both NOX, SO2 and PM. Combustion of alcohols
produces only small quantities of PM, and NOX is lower than with diesel combustion due to
lower combustion temperature of alcohols. SO2 is only formed by pilot fuel combustion.
On Stena Germanica, which was the first ship to be powered by methanol, the conversion
has resulted in significant reductions in emissions. In methanol operation, NOX is reduced
with 60 %, which moved the ship from Tier I to Tier II compliance (without SCR). SOX
emissions have been reduced with 99 %, PM emissions with 95 % and CO2 emissions with
25 % (Lloyds register, 2015).
Unregulated emissions from methanol
Experience with smaller methanol powered engines indicates potentially problematic
emission levels of aldehydes, unburned methanol, and CO, which are not regulated by IMO
Annex VI. Aldehydes are particularly toxic to living organisms including humans, and human
exposure should be minimized.
Methanol engines may require oxidation catalysts to keep hydrocarbon and aldehyde
emissions low. Sulfur tolerant oxidation catalysts are already available if future regulation is
made to limit these emissions.
Methanol can provide a very large reduction in particulate matter, which means that
particulate filters may not be considered relevant. If required for any application, such as
inland waterways, it will however be uncomplicated to use particulate filters, such as ceramic
wall flow filters, which can provide the same reductions in particulate emissions as those
used in vehicles today.

Methanol powered ships
The Swedish ferry Stena Germanica was the first ship to have the engines retrofitted with a
direct injection dual fuel injector solution. The ship is equipped with 4-stroke marine engines
from Wärtsilä-Sulzer, which were retrofitted between 2014 and 2016. The key components in
this setup are the dual fuel injectors developed by Woodward L´orange, which integrate the
diesel and methanol fuel delivery in one injector.
A number of conversion projects have also been performed on smaller ships with 4-stroke
engines.
In 2021, the Swedish company Scandinaos has developed small methanol powered
engines, based on Scania ethanol engines. One of these engines is used in a pilot boat
(Pilot 120 SE, MMSI: 265519660) which has been in operation since 2021.
In 2022, The Anglo Belgian Cooperation (ABC) converted two 4-stroke engines on a tug
(Methatug) for dual fuel methanol operation. The tug is to operate in the port of Antwerp,
alongside other converted vessels such as the Hydrotug, which is converted for hydrogen.
At the end of 2023, a polar research vessel named Uthörn entered operation with 2 x 300
kW diesel engines retrofitted for methanol DF.
Most new ships have been built with 2-stroke methanol engines. From 2015 and October
2023, a total of 23 chemical tankers and a single container ship has been constructed and
entered operation with 2-stroke DF methanol engines from MAN.
From 2021 to 2022, Maersk ordered a total of 18 container ships with 18,000 TEU capacity,
to be delivered from 2024 to 2026. These ships are to be equipped with MAN G95ME LGIM
methanol engines. In 2023, Mærsk ordered 6 more container ships with 9,000 TEU capacity,
also fueled by methanol. The Maersk methanol ships are meant to be powered with green
methanol, for which the production facilities are now being prepared by multiple actors and
production facilities.
In October 2023, a total of 188 ships with methanol DF engines are now on order and are to
be delivered within the next 5 years (Figure 57). 150 of these ships will be container ships.
The remaining ships are 14 chemical tankers, 7 bulk carriers, 7 offshore vessels and 10
other large ships of various classes.
Figure 57: Development in methanol fueled ships. Source: DNV AFI

New 4-stroke design with low compression
Denmark investigated a retrofit solution for larger 4-stroke marine diesel engines to run on
methanol without pilot fuel injection.
A 2 MW four stroke engine was successfully converted to run on methanol without pilot fuel
injection.
Figure 58 Results of the 2 MW engine conversion done in Denmark
Three different engine sizes were used to work gradually toward the end goal of 2 MW.
Figure 59 Test data from experimental methanol engines in Denmark

Methanol production, use and safety
This section was prepared by Päivi Aakko-Saksa, VTT
AMF TCP Task 56 report in marine methanol

AMF TCP Task 56 on methanol as fuel for the transport sector reviewed and evaluated
different aspects of production of methanol and its use in engines in different transport
sectors. Annex III of Task 56 report included the state of the art and research of methanol as
fuel in marine application, which was reported by VTT Technical Research Centre of
Finland. The reference of the Task 56 report is (Schröder, J., Müller-Langer, F., Aakko-
Saksa, P. Winther, K. Baumgarten, W. and Lindgren, M. , 2020)
Here, Task 56 report, Annex III is presented in a shorter form in respect of
characteristics desired for the marine fuel: Commercial engines available on market, low
emissions, compatible with existing infrastructure, available in sufficient volumes, sufficient
quality, safe and affordable relative to other advanced fuel options. As a liquid fuel, methanol
could serve even overseas marine transport.
Production
Sustainablility and climate-neutrality of methanol depends on its production. Biomass-based
and electro-fuel methanol are routes considered below.
For biomass based methanol, from cellulosic feedstocks, several techno-economic studies
have been conducted. Hannula and Kurkela (Hannula and Kurkela, 2013) studied 20
individual BTL plant designs with the results showing that FT liquids and synthetic gasoline
were more expensive than methanol and DME, whereas FT and MTG are drop-in fuels
meaning low system costs. BTL plants studied were attracting at crude oil price of 110-150
$/bbl. (Hannula and Kurkela, 2013). In Sweden, production of methanol from wood biomass,
including gasification of wood residual and gasification of pulp mill black liquor, has been
tested, e.g. in a pilot plant in Piteå. In Sweden, biomass potential is evaluated to be sufficient
to produce enough methanol for the smaller vessel segment. (Ellis et al., 2018).
For electro-fuel methanol, production costs have been studied by e.g. Hannula and Reiner
and Brynolf et al. (Hannula and Reiner, 2017; Brynolf et al., 2018). The cost of electrolytic
renewable hydrogen is dominated by the renewable electricity price. Hannula has estimated
that the production costs of e-methane could be 1.5-2.5 times higher than those of hydrogen,
while e-methanol would be slightly more costly than e-methane, and e-diesel (Fischer-
Tropsch) is the most expensive (appr. 1.4 x e-methane costs). When considering additional
storage and distribution costs, differences in costs between liquid and gaseous fuels narrow.
Whether to use e-hydrogen directly or after conversion to e-fuels is governed by the type of
end-use. (Hannula and Reiner, 2017). Production of e-methanol from CO2 is being tested in
Sweden from wind energy and CO2 of primarily biogen origin (Liquid Wind ref. in (Ellis et al.,
2018)).
Low-purity methanol is one possibility to reduce costs of methanol. Today, purity of the
99.85% is specified for the chemical industry, while combustion engines have been shown to
operate even when purity of methanol is 90% (ref. in (Ellis et al., 2018)). So far using a lower
purity “fuel grade” methanol has been impractical, however, it could be an opportunity for
smaller plants producing local renewable methanol for marine sector.

Methanol infrastructure
Infrastructure for methanol is widely available for shipping purposes, with only minor
changes, since methanol is a major commodity produced from natural gas and transported
by tankers to different countries and further distributed routinely by road and rail. Distribution
of methanol from renewable production plants to smaller vessels can be done by bunkering
by tanker truck for conventional fuels. Methanol is routinely transported by tanker truck to
customers.
Methanol engines for ships
For shipping, dual-fuel marine methanol engines are on market (Table 18). Dual-fuel diesel
engines for methanol use in large marine engines have been developed by Wärtsilä and
MAN. Wärtsilä has developed a methanol-diesel retrofit concept for four-stroke medium-
speed marine engines, called GD methanol-diesel, which has the advantage of using diesel
as a back-up fuel (used in the Stena Germanica ferry). In this technology, changes in the
cylinder heads, fuel injectors and fuel pumps are needed, as well as a special common rail
system and ECU (Haraldson, 2014; Stojcevski, Jay and Vicenzi, 2016). Retrofitting reduces
costs, although if the engine is too old it might be more cost effective to replace the complete
engine. However, retrofitting has also challenges depending on the generation of the engine
to be modified. (Ellis et al., 2018). Another dual-fuel engine concept for methanol developed
by MAN for newbuilds is used in several tankers by Waterfront Shipping (Lampert, 2017; Co,
2018)
Additised alcohol for diesel cycle, MD95 concept, is commercially available engine heavy-
duty engines, namely Scania’s engine designed for ethanol with ignition improver and
lubricity additive (ED95). This concept has been used since 1985 in over 600 buses supplied
by Scania to several countries. The modifications to the diesel engines include increased
compression ratio (28:1), a special fuel injection system and a catalyst to control aldehyde
emissions.(Hedberg, 2007) This monofuel alcohol engine concept was studied with ethanol
ED95 fuels, and preliminarily also with methanol using the commercial additives of ED95, by
(Nylund, N.-O. et al., 2015), (Schramm, J., 2016). New research on MD95 concept was
conducted in the SUMMETH project (Aakko-Saksa, P. T. et al., 2020).
Spark-ignited engines, such as PFI-SI or DI-SI could be used in vessels, with pistons and
cylinder heads adapted for spark plugs. These engines are on market for cars, and some
smaller size classes for smaller vessels. Some promising advanced combustion systems are
under development as described by (Verhelst and Tuner, 2019) and in Appendix 1 of AMF
TCP Task 56 report (contribution from Aalto University, Finland). PFI-SI engine is vulnerable
to knock.
In principle, methanol engines can have even higher efficiency than diesel engines (Tuner,
2016; Björnestrand, 2017; Shamun et al., 2017), e.g. direct-injection lean operation. Lowest
efficiency is expected for concepts running at stoichiometric air-to-fuel ratio, which, however,
show ultra-low emissions as three-way catalyst can be used (Tuner, 2016; Björnestrand,
2017).
One issue to consider when developing new methanol engine concepts is the material
compatibility due to corrosiveness of methanol. In-cylinder corrosion is to be considered
particularly if the engines are used at low loads or frequent start-stop operation without
proper warming up of an engine, which is relevant concern for smaller vessels (Ellis et al.,
2018).

Table 18 Comparison of various methanol engine concepts in comparison with HFO/diesel use in marine diesel
engines.
Engine type Status Robust Power, SOX HC, CO NOX PM

efficiency
HFO/diesel Reference 0 0 0 0 - -
Dual-fuel Large ships, on - 0 + 0 + +

market
MD95 with ED95 engine on - - + 0 + +

ox.cat. market
Spark-
See next section “Methanol and other alternatives for smaller ships” (China)
ignited
0 = similar performance with methanol as with HFO/diesel

– = worse performance with methanol than with HFO/diesel
+ = better performance with methanol than with HFO/diesel
Pollutants and climate emissions

Methanol has low emissions in many respects. Its high oxygen content leads to low carbon
based soot emissions in engine combustion, although in dual-fuel engines, diesel pilot may
lead to some soot emissions. For MD95, there are no soot emissions, but some unburned
additives are seen on particulate filters. Lubricating oil can be also a source of soot
emissions.
Dual-Fuel and MD95 concepts can reduce NOX emission down to approximately 2 g/kWh
without SCR system, and even lower NOX can be achieved by the use of e.g. lean operation
or EGR. For current SECA low SOX emissions with methanol alleviates costs as exhaust
aftertreatment with scrubbers are not needed. To secure low HC, CO,aldehyde emissions
and organic gases, low-cost oxidizing catalysts can be used. Methanol engines are less
noisy than diesel. (Corbett and Winebrake, 2018; Ellis et al., 2018).
Notable is that impacts of accidental spills of methanol would be less than those of a
HFO/diesel spill as methanol is biodegradable. (Ellis et al., 2018). Thus there are clear
environmental benefits for vessels and ships switching to operation on methanol fuels.
In the SUMMETH project, use of methanol as a fuel in smaller vessels showed lower
environmental impacts as compared to marine diesel fuels of today. A fuel life cycle
comparison showed that methanol produced from renewable feedstock (e.g. wood residuals
and pulp mill black liquor) can result in GHG emissions reductions of 75 to 90% (Figure 60).
Methanol produced from fossil feedstock results in a slightly higher GHG emission than
conventional petroleum fuels. (Ellis et al., 2018). Other evaluations are also available, e.g. by
(Corbett and Winebrake, 2018).

Figure 60 GHG emissions per MJ fuel for methanol from natural, wood residues, and black liquor gasification
(BLG) as compared to marine gasoil and MK 1 diesel. (Ellis et al., 2018).
Safety
The large ships using methanol in dual-fuel engines, the Stena Germanica and the
Waterfront shipping chemical tankers, have undergone safety assessments prior to approval
and to date have been operating safely. International regulations for use of methanol as a
ship fuel are under development at the IMO, and classification societies have developed
tentative or provisions rules. These international regulations provide guidance for good
practice for handling methanol as a marine fuel also in smaller vessels. (Ellis et al., 2018).
For small vessels some requirements applicable for large ships are not suitable, e.g. some
automation requirements. However, less special arrangements are necessary for methanol
use in smaller vessels than in larger ships. Practically, requirements would be very similar to
those for gasoline. (Ellis et al., 2018).
Research projects
Some examples of the marine methanol projects are as follows:
 MethaShip – renewable methanol a ‘long-term solution’ for emissions reduction
 LeanShips – Low Energy and Near to Zero Emissions Ships
 SUMMETH – Sustainable Marine Methanol
 UP-TO-ME – Unmanned-Power-to-Methanol-production
There are also activities and research projects on methanol use in fuel cells.

Methanol and other alternatives for smaller ships
This section was written by ESC of MVPA of MIIT, China.
Application Technology of Methanol Fuel for Marine Power
With the rapid development of human society, the contradiction between supply and demand
of energy and the deterioration and improvement of living environment is becoming
increasingly fierce. As a result, new challenges have been put forward to the traditional
energy structure. A series of new energy sources, such as atomic energy, light energy and
wind energy, have been developed and utilized to replace the traditional energy forms
dominated by coal and oil. Methanol fuel is widely used in the field of transportation due to
its advantages of renewable synthesis and low carbon. The International Maritime
Organization (IMO) has put forward a grand vision of reducing carbon emissions by 50% in
2050. Methanol fuel is being given high attention in the field of ships. In 2020, The CCC66
meeting of IMO adopted the resolution to use methanol as the main fuel of ships. Wuhan
Institute of rules of China Classification Society has completed the preparation of Chinese
rules according to IMO resolution.
Application Technology of Methanol Fuel in Spark Ignition Engines
As the power of automobiles, small gasoline engines have been used in mass production for
a hundred years. At present, the annual production and sales volume in the world is about
50million units, with a perfect and high-quality R & D, manufacturing, sales and service
system. But the use of gasoline as fuel has brought it into the increasingly fierce
contradiction between energy supply and environmental pollution. The above problems can
be effectively solved by changing the small gasoline engine to methanol fuel. At present,
Methanol Fueled small engines have been used in cars, small SUVs and commercial
vehicles, and have been rapidly promoted in Guizhou and other places in China. With the
deepening of the research on methanol fuel engine, the fuel efficiency and emission control
level are rapidly improving. The relevant test data show that the power rise of methanol fuel
engine reaches 30kW.h/L, minimum methanol fuel consumption rate 450g/kW.h. It has
reached the economy level of the current gasoline engine. It means that the methanol fuel
engine has the ability to partially replace the gasoline engine, and it also makes it possible to
effectively use the existing, huge and perfect traditional engine R & D, manufacturing and
service system when gasoline and diesel are reduced or restricted. The research and
practice of expanding the application range of methanol fuel engine has become realistic
and far-reaching significance.
With the government's increasingly strict emission regulations and supervision and
management on ship manufacturing and transportation operation, and with the demand for
ship power diversification (such as internal combustion drive, electric drive, fuel cell drive,
etc.) and low-carbon clean fuel diversification, methanol fuel engine as a marine auxiliary
engine is being widely and highly concerned. In China, the development and industrial
application of the positive ignition methanol fuel engine as a generator set / extended range
power unit has been completed.
Taking the 2000 DWT inland river cargo ship used for inland river ore transportation as an
example, the power cell propulsion is selected and the ignition methanol fuel engine is
added as the combined power generation range extension system, which can not only
realize the electrification of the turbine system of single propeller propulsion / multi propeller
propulsion, but also meet the requirements of the emission regulations for ships. Due to the
low noise and low vibration of the combined power unit of methanol fuel engine, it can also
provide a comfortable operating environment for ship operators. The 1.6L displacement
methanol fuel engine is used, M100 methanol is used as fuel, and the electronically
controlled sequential inlet injection technical scheme is selected. The rated power is 60kW,
and a DC engine with rated power of 40kW is matched, which is defined as a power unit.
The power units are combined in parallel to form a power module that meets the needs and
form a complete power system with the ship's electric power to meet the shipping needs of
2000 ton inland river cargo ships.
The methanol fuel engine power unit can be composed of N engines, and the intelligent
control technology is adopted to comprehensively control and execute the output power, fuel
consumption, intake and exhaust system, thermal management system, power output, AC
power output, single power start and stop control, vibration and noise reduction control, etc.
This constitutes the methanol power unit, which can support the ship electric drive, ship life
auxiliary power, ship production and operation power in the form of intelligent power
generation output according to the ship application demand.
The power generation unit is composed of positive ignition methanol fuel engine, and the
power module is composed of power units. The power module is operated and managed by
intelligent control technology, and it is applied to ships to meet the power / power demand of
different purposes. Realize the environmental friendliness of ships and reduce the fuel cost
of ship operation.
Diesel/Methanol Binary Combustion Technology
For the marine medium and high-speed main and auxiliary engines, focusing on meeting the
emission regulations and the development trend of low sulfur fuel application, the
engineering technology team of Tianjin University and Zichai Power Co., Ltd. jointly
developed the marine diesel / methanol binary fuel combustion technology. This technical
innovation puts forward a new combustion theory, and its combustion mode is between the
traditional combustion mode and HCCI (homogeneous charge compression ignition). Its
main feature is compression ignition and efficient application of methanol fuel. Based on the
molecular structure of methanol fuel, the emission control effect of PM and NOX in
pollutants is particularly significant.
Characteristics of Diesel / Methanol Binary Fuel Combustion Mode
The combustion process of traditional diesel engine is characterized by "rich premixed
combustion" of incomplete combustion products "From the beginning to the end of fuel
injection, this kind of rich premixed combustion is an incomplete combustion with poor
oxygen, and the combustion enters the PM generation area. Because the combustion
process is affected by the fuel injection diffusion rate, the combustion of the mixture is
carried out in the process of continuous diffusion and temperature rise, and finally reaches
the NOX generation area, producing a large amount of NOX. Limited by the mixing rate, the
combustion heat release of the diesel engine continues until the piston goes down. At the
later stage of combustion, the local concentration and temperature bars in the cylinder It
determines the emission result, combustion efficiency and thermal efficiency of the engine.
In order to solve the problems of traditional diesel engines, researchers put forward HCCI
combustion theory. HCCI combustion mode is considered as an efficient and clean
combustion mode. Homogeneous fuel air mixture has been prepared before combustion in
the combustion chamber, and the equivalence ratio of the mixture is controlled below the
threshold of soot generation. During the compression stroke, the temperature and pressure
in the cylinder are rising continuously. The mixed gas reaches the spontaneous combustion
condition at multiple points at the same time, so that the combustion occurs at multiple
points at the same time, and there is no obvious flame front. The combustion reaction is
rapid, and the combustion temperature is low and evenly distributed. Therefore, it has high

economy and generates very little NOX and PM. However, HCCI theory is difficult to be
applied in engineering due to its low power density, difficult to control ignition time and
serious detonation tendency.
In the diesel / methanol binary fuel combustion mode, methanol is injected into the intake
port. Before ignition, methanol has formed a homogeneous mixture with air, and the
equivalence ratio of the mixture remains below 1. As methanol is a low active fuel that is
difficult to ignite, it is difficult for the piston to ignite by itself when it runs to the top dead
center. Therefore, it is necessary to use in cylinder direct injection diesel as the ignition
energy source. The mixture of diesel and air ignites first and ignites the surrounding
methanol air mixture at the same time. Then, methanol flame propagation and diesel
diffusion combustion occur simultaneously in the cylinder. Based on the fact that the
premixed combustion contains methanol and more diesel air mixture can be formed during
the ignition delay period, the diesel / methanol binary fuel combustion shows a higher
premixed combustion peak than pure diesel on the heat release rate curve. Due to the
existence of diffusion combustion and flame propagation, the combustion duration of Diesel /
methanol binary fuel combustion mode is longer than that of HCCI combustion, but
significantly shorter than that of traditional diesel combustion mode. In the diesel / methanol
binary fuel combustion mode, the diesel / methanol mixture will not pass through the soot
generation zone and may enter the NOX generation zone when the combustion equivalence
ratio of the diesel / methanol mixture remains unchanged and the temperature rises sharply.
Due to the addition of methanol, the diffusion combustion quality of diesel fuel is reduced,
and the equivalence ratio of diesel air mixture is reduced, which can inhibit the entry into the
soot generation area. The mixture of diesel and methanol air realizes multi-point
simultaneous combustion in the cylinder, which makes the temperature distribution more
uniform, effectively avoids the occurrence of local high temperature zone, and can inhibit the
generation of NOX. The combustion process of binary fuel is complex and changeable. The
change of combustion process is closely related to engine operating conditions and
replacement rate. High substitution rate makes DMDF more inclined to HCCI mode. At low
substitution rate, DMDF is more similar to the traditional diesel engine combustion mode.
DMDF is obviously easier to control the combustion phase than HCCI.
Emission Control of Methanol / Diesel Dual Fuel Engine
The emissions to be controlled by marine engines include SOX, NOX, PM/soot, THC/HC and
CO.
SOX: methanol does not contain sulfur. The diesel / methanol binary fuel combustion mode
can effectively reduce SOX emissions and realize the effective control of ship power SOX by
replacing diesel with methanol.
NOX and PM/soot: the diesel / methanol dual fuel combustion mode is efficient and clean,
and the engine PM and NOX are effectively controlled at the same time. With the increase of
methanol substitution rate, the effect of reducing PM emission is more obvious.
HC and CO: Although IMO Tier II /Tier III regulations do not require HC and CO of unburned
hydrocarbons, Chinese standard gb15097 has specific requirements. The combination of
Diesel / methanol binary fuel technology and DOC (Diesel Oxidation Catalyst） technology
can meet the standard requirements.
Methanol Fuel Cell
Methanol fuel cell is an electrochemical reaction device that directly converts methanol
chemical energy into electrical energy. It has the advantages of primary / secondary battery
and internal combustion engine. From the perspective of fuel, methanol is a liquid hydrogen
storage medium and a zero carbon energy carrier spanning the oil and gas era (green
methanol is prepared from green hydrogen and carbon dioxide). The energy density of
methanol fuel is up to 6000wh/kg, the 70MPa high-pressure hydrogen tank is about
1800wh/kg, and the lithium battery is only 200wh/kg. At the same time, methanol storage
and transportation are convenient, and the infrastructure covers the eastern coast of China,
the eastern coast of the United States, the coast of Europe and some coastal areas in the
Middle East; In the world, most coastal cities or sea lanes have the conditions for methanol
injection. From the perspective of environmental impact, the SOX, NOX and PM emissions of
methanol fuel cells are nearly zero, the CO2 emission reduction of gray methanol is 40%,
and the emission of green methanol is nearly zero; Methanol is biodegradable and difficult to
cause long-term impact on the environment. If methanol leaks on a large scale in the water
area, it will be diluted rapidly to a low concentration (<1%). Most microorganisms can oxidize
methanol into formic acid in enzymatic reaction, and further convert it into carbon dioxide
under the action of folic acid. From the perspective of operating cost, the operating cost of
methanol fuel cell is only half of that of diesel engine.
At present, methanol fuel cells are gradually accepted as the propulsion power in cruise
ships, small passenger and cargo ships / unmanned ships. On October 8, 2021, the first
methanol fuel cell powered cruise ship jointly developed by the Dalian Institute of Chemical
Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and China Jiahong (Foshan) New Energy
Technology Co., Ltd. made its maiden voyage in Xianhu, Foshan, opening a new direction of
green shipping. With a length of 15m and a crew of 20, the hybrid system is composed of
methanol fuel cells and batteries. Adding 200 kg of methanol can generate about 400 kwh of
electricity, and can drive the ship for more than 20 hours at the limited speed of 5.5 knots in
the inner lake. To achieve the same driving range, lead-acid batteries need 15-20 tons and
lithium batteries need 3-4 tons. Methanol fuel cell powered ships have obvious technical and
economic advantages, and will be the first to be popularized and applied in inland rivers.
With the improvement of technological maturity, they will play an important role in offshore
and ocean transportation in the future.
Figure 61 "Jiahong 01" methanol fuel cell powered cruise ship

Methanol fuel cell, as the auxiliary power supply of 1000 ton inland river cargo ship, provides
production and living power for ship berthing, berthing, loading and unloading goods, and is
undergoing engineering verification. According to statistics, the carbon emission generated
by the auxiliary generator during the berthing of ships accounts for 40% to 70% of the total
carbon emission of the port, which is an important factor affecting the air quality of the port
and its city. As an auxiliary power supply, the efficiency of methanol fuel cell is twice that of
diesel engine. It is estimated that compared with diesel generator, the 200 kW auxiliary
power supply of methanol fuel cell can save fuel costs of millions RMB per year.
Online Hydrogen Production by Methanol Water Reforming
The methanol water reforming online hydrogen production device developed and produced
by Guangdong Nengchuang Technology Co., Ltd. can be divided into two application lines
on fishing boats and cargo ships:
1. It can be combined with hydrogen internal fuel engine as the main force of the ship;
Through methanol reforming on-line hydrogen production device, hydrogen with a purity of
70-75% is produced, which is supplied to the hydrogen internal combustion engine for direct
combustion. By converting the heat generated by combustion into power to the ship as
power, and directly using the exhaust gas of the internal combustion engine to provide
reaction heating to the on-line hydrogen production device, the energy efficiency of the
whole hydrogen production device can exceed 90%. Because the device uses the exhaust
heat energy of the internal fuel engine, the combustion chamber is cancelled, and the whole
reaction process has no emission, Pollution free, the production cost of hydrogen rich
(hydrogen content 70-75%) is low. 1kg of hydrogen rich can be produced per 5kg of
methanol water. According to the current price of methanol (2600 yuan / ton), the cost of
hydrogen rich is less than 15 yuan / kg, which has great commercial promotion value.
2. It can be used in combination with hydrogen fuel cells to provide hydrogen with different
purity according to different fuel cells. For example, in combination with low-temperature
proton exchange membrane fuel cells, methanol reforming online hydrogen production
device can produce hydrogen with purity up to 99.97%@co ≤ 0.2ppm, which can be directly
supplied to the fuel cell, and then the hydrogen can be converted into electric energy through
the fuel cell, which can be supplied to fishing boats and cargo ships for lighting and living
auxiliary power. For ships with small power, this device can also be directly used as the main
power. In this way, 1kg of hydrogen is produced per 7-7.5kg of methanol. According to the
current methanol price and the power consumption during operation, the cost is less than 21
yuan /kg, which has a great cost advantage compared with the price of 60-80 yuan /kg in the
hydrogenation station. At the same time, the calorific value of tail gas discharged during
hydrogen production can provide hot water to the ship through heat exchange, The heat
utilization efficiency of the whole system is improved.
Comparison between methanol fuel and other fuels used in ship power
The low-carbon transformation of shipping energy is a long-term and complex system
engineering. The research and judgment of various clean energy application prospects need
to comprehensively consider various factors. In particular, how to break through the dilemma
of supply and application, and solve the triangle theory of energy impossibility, that is, it is
difficult to give consideration to clean, stable and cheap at the same time. Taking China's
water transportation as the research object, this paper compares the low-carbon fuel
shipping applications represented by LNG, methanol, biodiesel, hydrogen and ammonia.

Table 19 Comparison of characteristics of several fuels
Parameter Diesel Biodiesel LNG Methanol Hydrogen Ammonia
Molecular Formula C10-C21 R-COOCH3 CH4 CH3OH H2 NH3
State Liquid Liquid Gaseous Liquid Gaseous Gaseous
Liquid density 0.0708 0.682

0.82-0.86 0.77-0.79 0.42-0.46 0.79
/kg·L⁻¹ (-253℃) (-33℃)
Boiling point /℃ 180-360 180 -162 64.7 -253 -33
Flash point /℃ ＞55 ＞60 -188 11 -50 11
Spontaneous
250 204 650 465 585 630
combustion point /℃
Low calorific value

42.5 44 50 19.5 120 18.6
/MJ·kg⁻¹
Octane number 20-30 130 111 130 130
Cetane number 40-55 低 3-5 - 0
Flammability limits 1.58-8.2 0.6-7.5 5-15 6-36.5 4-75 15-28
Comparison of Application Technology Schemes

Marine natural gas (LNG) engines mainly have two technical routes: high-pressure and low-
pressure. The high-pressure model has certain advantages in thermal efficiency, fuel quality
adaptability, methane escape control, power range and so on. The low-pressure model
performs well in NOX emission, complexity and cost of gas supply system. In general, the
natural gas engine technology is basically mature, and large-scale application has become
possible. The industry is carrying out technical research on methane emission control,
dynamic characteristic optimization and other aspects.
The marine methanol engine is divided into pure methanol engine and methanol diesel dual
fuel engine. According to the methanol injection mode, it is divided into cylinder direct
injection and airway injection.
a) The methanol premixed ignition PFI-SI (port fuel injection spark ignition) and direct
injection spark ignition DI-SI (direct injection spark ignition) positive ignition methanol engine
technologies represented by the Swedish green pilot boat project.
b) The methanol dual fuel engine technology of methanol / diesel cylinder high pressure
direct injection HPDF (high pressure dual fuel) represented by German Mann and Wartsila,
Finland, can operate in both dual fuel mode and diesel mode (D mode).
c) China Zichai Power Co., Ltd. cooperates with the State Key Laboratory of internal
combustion engine of Tianjin University to develop marine methanol / diesel dual fuel engine
technology. Methanol / diesel dual fuel DMDF (diesel methanol dual fuel), methanol is
injected in the intake pipe, methanol and air form a homogeneous mixture, which is ignited
by diesel in the cylinder. This method has small changes to the prototype, good inheritance,
high thermal efficiency, stable low load operation, and can operate in pure diesel mode (D
mode) under special circumstances, especially suitable for medium and high-speed engines
of inland and offshore fishing vessels and cargo ships.
Figure 62 Methanol combustion concepts

Diesel
(a) PFI-SI Methanol (b) DI-SI Methanol direct (c) DMDF Binary fuel (d) HPDF Double jet
premixed ignition injection ignition combustion ignition
Biodiesel is a kind of biomass energy, which contains 77% carbon, 12% hydrogen and 11%
oxygen, as well as trace sulfur and nitrogen. The main combustion component is fatty acid
methyl ester. Biodiesel can be made from oil crops, aquatic plants, animal fats, waste
cooking oil, etc. The research shows that the performance of biodiesel is close to that of
petrochemical diesel. The industry has carried out a series of on-board tests around the
application of fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) and hydrogenated vegetable oil fuel (HVO).
Fame can only be mixed with diesel in internal combustion engines at present, and the
mixing proportion should not exceed 7%. HVO is similar to MgO in composition and physical
and chemical properties and can be directly used in internal combustion engines without
modification.
Hydrogen diesel dual fuel internal combustion engine has been studied on small passenger
ships. Hydrogen diesel dual fuel medium speed engine is currently in the research and
development stage, and the industry is targeting hydrogen fuel high-pressure injection;
Increase ignition energy; For possible detonation caused by fast flame propagation; The
combustion temperature is too high; Carry out key basic research and engineering
application key technology research on a series of issues such as NOX emission control.
The research and development of ammonia fueled internal combustion engine is in
progress, focusing on a series of problems such as high spontaneous combustion
temperature, slow flame propagation speed, narrow flammability limit range, high gasification
latent heat, emission control (especially N2O) and conversion device stability. In terms of
ammonia fuel engine technology, a scientific research team has carried out research on a
variety of combined combustion technologies, such as airway low-pressure injection,
cylinder high-pressure injection, precombustion chamber ignition, cylinder diesel ignition, etc.

Comparison of Exhaust Pollutants
Conventional emissions from traditional diesel engines: PM, SOX, NOX, HC, CO, etc.
The pollutants of low sulfur MGO diesel are mainly PM and NOX, and NOX in the emission
control area (ECA) needs to be controlled by SCR device.
The emission pollutants of heavy oil are mainly PM, SOX and NOX, and the emission is
higher than that of MgO diesel. The control mode is mainly scrubber and SCR.
As a marine power fuel, methanol is easy to comply with PM and NOX in exhaust pollutants.
There are relatively many HC and CO in premixed methanol engine, so doc device can be
selected for removal. The content of various pollutants emitted by direct injection methanol
engine can be well controlled.
Hydrogen and ammonia are used as marine power fuels, because they do not contain
carbon, so the generation of PM is very low, and HC and co will not be produced, but NOX
will be produced, which must be controlled by SCR technology.
Exhaust Greenhouse Gas Comparison
There are at least seven kinds of greenhouse gases (GHG), including carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCS), perfluorocarbons (PFCs),
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). The harmful substances related to
the impact of ship power on greenhouse gas emissions are mainly the first three emission
products.
The contribution of carbon element in LNG to carbon dioxide emission reduction is limited,
and methane escape during use will have a certain impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
As a marine fuel, biodiesel has the same CO2 emissions as diesel. Because the carbon
element comes from renewable biomass, it can be considered as a fuel to achieve "carbon
neutrality".
Methanol is prepared from hydrocarbon energy. At present, 70% of China's methanol
production capacity is coal, and the international raw material for methanol preparation is
mainly natural gas. In 2020, after China put forward the goals of "carbon peaking" and
"carbon neutralization", in view of the development requirements of the promotion and
application of clean energy, it proposed to use renewable energy to produce hydrogen and
capture carbon dioxide to synthesize methanol, so as to realize the comprehensive
utilization of carbon dioxide resources. This work is being carried out in an all-round way and
is expected to produce more than 20million tons of renewable energy methanol by 2030.
The exhaust emissions of hydrogen fueled engine applications do not contain greenhouse
gases.
The application of ammonia fuel engine will not produce CO2, but the exhaust emissions will
produce N2O in greenhouse gases.
Fuel Safety Comparison
LNG is a non-toxic and non corrosive gas fuel. The internal space of the ship, especially the
engine room, has various and complex equipment, so open flames and sparks should be
avoided. The marine LNG system has been basically mature, generally including filling
system, LNG fuel tank, evaporator, gas valve unit (GVU), double wall pipe and inert gas
system. All existing LNG power ships use C-type fuel tanks. There are many openings below
the liquid level of LNG fuel tank, and the leakage must be strictly controlled. The liquefied
gas in the fuel tank needs to be gasified, heated and pressurized before entering the dual

fuel engine for combustion.
Methanol protection requirements. Methanol is corrosive to some rubber materials and
aluminum alloy materials. Special attention should be paid to the selection of sealing
materials in the methanol fuel transmission and distribution system and methanol fuel
engine.
Ballast tanks and double bottoms are allowed for the storage of methanol on board, and the
fuel tanks under the water surface may not be equipped with isolation tanks.
The main problem of biodiesel as a marine power fuel is that it will undergo oxidative
degradation over time. The degradation products are insoluble resins, organic acids and
aldehydes, which will lead to the failure of internal combustion engines and injectors.
As a marine power fuel, the core problems of hydrogen are hydrogen carrying, sealing of
connection system, escape control, safety monitoring, etc.
As a marine power fuel, the core issues of ammonia are the system control, stability,
consistency and reliability of the conversion device from liquid to gas, the monitoring of
ammonia escape and the rapid purging disposal. In particular, prevent ammonia leakage
from damaging the water ecological environment.
Safer than Diesel by a

factor of 240 times
Methane Heavy Fuel Oil Diesel Gasoline Ammonia

49.9(mg/L) 79(mg/L) 65(mg/L) 8.2(mg/L) 3.6(mg/L)
Methanol
15,400(mg/L)
Safer than Ammonia by a

factor of 4300 times
LC50,LC=LETHAL CONCENTRATION
Concentration in water,at which half the
population died within specified test duration
Source: MethaShip, ECHA, basechem.org
Figure 63 Toxicity of marine fuels
Comparison of Fuel Reserves for Building New Ships

Energy density, especially volume energy density, is one of the key indicators to assess the
feasibility of different clean energy applications on board. It determines the space required
for loading fuel on board and affects the cargo carrying capacity of the ship. The higher the
volume energy density, the longer the endurance mileage can be obtained with the same
fuel tank volume. Fishing vessels are divided into offshore fishing and ocean fishing. The
materials for preparation of offshore fishing vessels have clear requirements for fuel storage.
Ocean fishing and ocean ships have high requirements for endurance and are sensitive to

the volume energy density index of fuel; Offshore ships and inland river ships have relatively
low endurance requirements and low sensitivity to volume energy density.
According to the data in Table 7, the theoretical equivalent calorific value is replaced by 1m ³
Volume of diesel, 1.04 m ³required biodiesel, 1.62 m ³ Liquefied natural gas, 2.32 m ³
methanol, 4.20 m³ liquid hydrogen, 2.81 m³ liquid ammonia, among which liquefied natural
gas, liquid hydrogen and liquid ammonia tanks need thermal insulation materials, necessary
safety space, and more safety auxiliary equipment, so the actual occupied space will be
larger.
Biodiesel, the endurance capacity of the oil tank with the same capacity is consistent with
that of the diesel system.
Methanol fuel can be stored in the original diesel fuel tank or in the ship's ballast tank. The
methanol fuel tank under the water surface may not be equipped with an isolation tank, and
it is allowed to use a double bottom space to store methanol.
There is no specification for the storage of hydrogen in marine fuel, and there is no hydrogen
powered ship. The industry mainly uses high-pressure gas cylinders to store and transport
hydrogen. The sealing and leakage problems still need to be paid close attention to in this
storage and transportation mode.
The boiling point of ammonia fuel is -33 °C which is stored in liquid form under 7-8
atmospheric pressures and converted into gaseous fuel. The energy density of ammonia is
lower than that of diesel oil, so the ship needs to design a larger space for storing ammonia
fuel, which is used to arrange the space for ammonia fuel storage, safety protection and
liquid gas conversion devices.
Comparison of Transformation Possibilities of Ships in Use

Engine modification:
As a fuel, biodiesel does not require technical transformation of the engine.
Methanol fuel engine technology is mature, and IMO standards and regulations have been
issued and implemented.
LNG fuel engine technology is mature, the system is complex, and the standard
specifications have been issued and implemented.
Ammonia fueled engines need fuel storage, safety protection and liquid gas conversion
devices, and are currently in the stage of engineering research.
Hydrogen fueled engine needs complex fuel storage hydrogen and fuel supply system,
which is currently in the stage of engineering research.
According to the difficulty of engine technical transformation, the low-carbon clean fuel used
in the transformation of ship power is biodiesel, methanol, LNG, ammonia and hydrogen
from low to high.

Hull modification:
The hull reconstruction is mainly composed of fuel storage and supporting fuel pretreatment
system. According to the reconstruction difficulty, the order from low to high is biodiesel,
methanol, LNG, ammonia and hydrogen.
Table 20 Comparison Table of Low Carbon Clean Fuel Reserves for Ships in Use
Use the original fuel tank Add fuel tank Add special storage tank
LNG √
Methanol √ √
Biodiesel √
Hydrogen √
Ammonia √
Note: The selection of liquid fuel at normal temperature and pressure is the lowest cost
scheme for ship transformation.
For the application of low-carbon clean fuel in ship power, in addition to the above technical
scheme and convenience, the total amount of fuel, transportation and distribution guarantee,
supply and other factors should also be considered.
Based on the data obtained in this research report, the application of low-carbon clean fuels
in ship power, whether in ship reconstruction or new ship manufacturing, should be the first
choice according to the two dimensions of total fuel volume and supply, which can achieve
"carbon neutrality" and sustainable development. As the mainstream fuel of future ship
power, methanol has won the consensus of the industry.
Methanol Fuel Filling for Ship Power
In view of the properties of methanol fuel as a liquid at normal temperature and pressure, the
filling of methanol fuel for ship power can be carried out in full accordance with the current
liquid fuel filling specifications.
Refueling on River and Sea Surface
According to the requirements of national maritime regulations, the power fuel filling of river
and sea surface ships is divided into two filling modes: service area barge filling and mobile
filling.
Fill with mobile filling ship. The fuel filling ships on the river and sea surface determine the
tonnage plan of fuel to be filled and the coordinates of berthing anchorage through
telecommunication inquiry. The fuel filling service area applies for a maritime operation
permit 24 hours in advance. After obtaining the maritime administrative permit, the
dangerous goods mobile refueling ships are arranged to carry the fuel to the predetermined
coordinate anchorage, and after the professional companies (approved and designated by
the maritime department) take leakage prevention measures, The filling operation shall be
carried out by the staff of the mobile filling ship according to the standard process of
dangerous goods handover.

Fill barges in the service area. The mode of fuel filling on the river and sea surface is that the
ships inquire and make an appointment in advance through telecommunication. The lighter
in the fuel filling service area (the maritime department designates the location and
implements the whole process supervision), according to the tonnage of the ship filling fuel
and the planned fuel filling volume, prearranges the reserved parking position, and the
lighter staff carries out the fuel filling operation according to the standard process of
dangerous goods handover.
Port Filling
At present, the maritime department has not issued the specifications and permits for the
implementation of ship power fuel filling at the port terminals. There are corresponding
regulations and requirements for the loading and unloading of cargo fuel at dangerous
chemical terminals, but they are not applicable to ship power fuel filling.
At present, in the process of developing the application of methanol fuel for ship power,
China's shipbuilding industry has specially developed a methanol fuel skid mounted station
at the wharf to provide fuel filling for the methanol fuel ships developed. The work of
exploring a new mode of marine power fuel filling is under way.
Marine Power Methanol Fuel Filling Equipment
Methanol fuel mobile refueling ship has the characteristics of flexibility, speed and
convenience. In inland river and coastal surface transportation and operation areas,
including offshore fishing grounds, the fuel supply of fishing vessels is considered to be the
preferred way of methanol fuel injection.
Methanol fuel mobile refueling ship: Based on the chemical characteristics of dangerous
goods of methanol fuel, the applicable ship is a dangerous goods chemical ship. It is
suggested that the construction of new dangerous chemicals ships should be built according
to the marine ship manufacturing standards (stainless steel is recommended for hull
construction), so as to realize the river sea combined transportation mode as soon as
possible.
Requirements for the construction tonnage of methanol fuel mobile refueling ship:
considering the fuel economy of the daily sailing mileage of methanol fuel refueling ship and
the convenience of refueling operation. The newly built ships should be 300 tonnage and
3000 tonnage, so as to meet the needs of retail and wholesale business.
Methanol fuel filling equipment: it shall have the unloading gas phase recovery system and
fuel filling gas phase recovery system. Compared with traditional diesel filling equipment, the
anti-corrosion function needs to be strengthened. Avoid using metal materials such as
aluminum alloy and zinc alloy. Equipped with safety and emergency protective equipment
such as goggles, eye washers, corrosion-resistant gloves, etc.
The setting of daily berths for methanol fuel mobile refueling ships: generally, there are three
berthing modes: port dock berths, water service area ship berths, and dangerous goods ship
anchorages.
Methanol fuel supply for mobile refueling ships: receive methanol fuel in the port methanol
fuel refueling warehouse or the water service area reservoir area and implement fuel
refueling with the administrative permission of the maritime department according to the
service contract and plan arrangement. In the methanol fuel filling operation, ensure that
there are professional personnel to carry out the preparatory work of anti-leakage and
pollution measures.

Supply And Guarantee of Methanol Fuel for Ships
Methanol fuel filling water service area: the construction project party shall provide chemical
barges that meet the relevant regulations of the classification society, meet the fire
protection, environmental protection, safety supervision, navigation evaluation and
acceptance, and anchor and fix them on the anchorage approved by the maritime
department.
The setting of fixed anchorage in the water service area: it is recommended to meet the local
official regulations, the infrastructure construction should meet the official safety supervision
requirements, and the selection of anchorage should be based on demand and convenient
services.
Special tips: to achieve environmental friendliness and meet the trend of promoting the
application of low-carbon clean fuels, the construction of water service areas should have
tap water supply, oil and sewage reception, shore power connection and other facilities.
The main functions of the water service area: it can meet the methanol fuel filling of ships,
and provide the crew with supplies of daily necessities, crew annual inspection, Port
declaration, maritime administrative declaration, regulations publicity, etc.
Methanol Fueled dangerous chemical vessels in the water service area should have the
following safety precautions in their daily production operations.
(1) Emergency disposal measures for ships touching nearby hydraulic facilities
(2) Emergency measures for personnel falling into water
(3) Emergency measures for fire and explosion accidents
(4) Emergency measures for ship collision accidents
(5) Emergency measures for ship grounding accident
(6) Emergency measures for ship out of control
(7) Emergency measures for ships in danger of sinking
(8) Emergency measures for oil spill accident
(9) Emergency disposal measures for ships in bad weather
After the above emergency plan is prepared, it shall be reported to the competent maritime
authority for filing.
Volatilization Control And Supervision of Fuel Storage And Filling
Methanol fuel filling and storage should be equipped with the determination, monitoring and
disposal of the leakage index concentration at the closed point of the oil and gas recovery
system, the monitoring of the emission concentration of the oil and gas treatment device,
and the determination of the excessive emission concentration of the oil and gas treatment
device in the oil depot.
China has standard regulations on fuel storage, transportation and filling. The Ministry of
Ecological Environment and the State Administration of Market Supervision jointly issued
<The Emission Standard of Air Pollutants for Oil Storage (GB 20950-2020)>, <The Emission
Standard of Air Pollutants for Oil Transportation (GB 20951-2020) >and <The Emission
Standard of Air Pollutants for Gas Stations (GB 20952-2020)>. At present, the road
transportation field is implemented according to the above standards. Ship fuel shall also be
subject to the above standards.

Progress Assessment Summary
Comparison of Technical Solutions
Methanol Technical Solutions
Table 21 Technical Scheme of Methanol Application in Marine Engine
Item Applicable
Technology Maturity Application Examples Note
Scheme Engine Type
The existing diesel

Spark ignition methanol
medium and engine needs to be
Spark Ignition Spark plug engine modified with
high speed Mature replaced. Applicable
Engine ignition natural gas. (trial operation
engine to new ship
in Sweden)
construction
Diesel / Both new ship

medium and methanol Jianglong boat loading, manufacturing and in-
Compression
high speed binary Mature Zichai bench test, Nantong service ship
Ignition Engine
engine combustion fishing boat test operation transformation can be
technology used
LNG Technical Solution

Table 22 Technical Scheme of LNG Application in Marine Engine
Item Applicable Application

Technology Maturity Note
Engine Type Examples
Scheme
The existing diesel

medium and
Spark plug Weichai engine needs to be
high speed Mature
ignition replaced. New ships
engine Zichai are more applicable
Spark Ignition
Engine Both new ship
medium and low Spark plug Yuchai manufacturing and
Appliable in-service ship
speed engine ignition
Zichai reconstruction can
be used
The existing diesel

Some ships in
high speed Diesel/LNG engine needs to be
Testing the Yangtze
engine double fuel replaced. New ships
River Basin
are more applicable
Spark Ignition
Engine Both new ship
Medium, high Some ships in manufacturing and
Diesel/LNG Partial
and low speed the Yangtze in-service ship
double fuel application
engine River Basin reconstruction can
be used
Power Battery Technical Solution

Table 23 Technical scheme of marine engine power battery
Item Applicable Engine Application

Scheme Type Examples
Replace the The existing diesel engine

existing engine medium and high Ferries and tourist needs to be replaced. The
Electric drive Testing
with electric motor speed engine boats in some areas new ship is more
drive applicable
Methanol Fuel Cell Technical Solution

Table 24 Technical scheme of fuel cell for marine engine
Item Applicable Application

Scheme Engine Type Examples
The existing diesel

Fuel cell
Replace high speed engine needs to be
(hydrogen and testing testing
existing engine engine replaced. The new ship
methanol as fuel)
is more applicable

Comparison of Fuel Application
Table 25 Comparison of alternative fuel applications for ships in China

Fuel Supply and Support Comparison
Table 26 Comparison of alternative fuel infrastructure
Adaptability Comparison
Table 27 Comparison of alternative fuel applicability for Chinese ships

Suggestions and Prospects
Suggestions on The Application of Methanol Fuel in The Field of Ships
(1) In view of the environmental friendliness of methanol fuel to inland water resources and
marine water resources, the promotion of methanol fuel application by fishing vessels can
not only protect water resources, but also effectively reduce pollution to the storage,
transportation, and storage of fishing biological products. Suggestion: the regulation and
management of mobile fuel supply for fishing vessels operating in exclusive fishing grounds
and fishing periods need to be explored and studied.
(2) Inland navigation and surface operation equipment ships, because their navigation and
operation are in the fresh water system, it is particularly important to prevent ships from
polluting water resources. In view of the friendly characteristics of methanol as a low-carbon
clean fuel and pollution to water resources, it is suggested that the global shipping industry
and government departments and institutions around the world should issue corresponding
policies from the perspective of policies, regulations and incentive mechanisms. Encourage
inland river shipping, offshore transportation, river sea direct transportation and tourist
passenger ships to promote the application of methanol fuel.
(3) At present, there are two ways of bunkering ships approved by the Chinese government:
choose the lighter in the bunkering service area to carry out bunkering, choose the
anchorage of the ship, and use the mobile bunkering ship to carry out bunkering according
to the standard process of dangerous goods handover. With the application and
popularization of methanol fuel, it is convenient to provide fuel filling for ships berthing at the
port through fixed facilities, which is not only convenient for operation, but also convenient
for safety control, and more convenient for fixed fuel filling facilities to achieve multi-
functional services. Suggestion: it should be raised to the agenda for exploration and
research.
Application Trend And Prospect of Low Carbon Clean Fuel for Ship Power
On June 24, 2022, the Ministry of transport of China, the State Railway Administration, the
Civil Aviation Administration of China, and the State Post Office issued Implementation
Opinions. Article (6) of the opinion puts forward the application direction of exploring new
power ships such as methanol, hydrogen, and ammonia. Article (12) of the opinions
proposes to improve the technological innovation ability of transportation. Promote the
application of new energy, clean energy, renewable synthetic fuels and other low-carbon
cutting-edge technologies in the field of transportation. On July 1, the guidelines for the
application of methanol / ethanol fuels in ships (2022) issued by China Classification Society
(CCS) came into force. The implementation of the guidelines can make the preset clean
energy power rules to follow. It can be seen from the above official dynamic documents and
specifications that this is China's guidance for the application of methanol technology in
fishing vessels and general cargo ships.
If we look at the technical support for the application of low-carbon clean fuels, we know that
in the process of human energy consumption, we have experienced fuel changes such as
charcoal, coal, oil, natural gas, ethanol, etc. In today's energy transformation and
development, the synthesis of renewable methanol, as well as hydrogen and ammonia fuels,
are being given public hope by mankind and have launched in-depth exploration and
application in the current process of energy transformation.
Methanol is a liquid fuel with the highest hydrogen content available to mankind at present.
Under normal temperature and pressure, 1 liter of methanol contains 98.8 grams of
hydrogen (0.79kgx12.5%); When pure hydrogen is in liquid state at -253 ℃, the hydrogen

content of 1 liter is 70.8 grams; Under normal temperature and pressure, the hydrogen
content (hydrogen storage density) of methanol is higher than that of electrolytic water under
pressure and low temperature cooling.
Ethanol fuel. In view of the fact that the source of ethanol raw materials in China is likely to
compete with land for grain, the development of biomass energy processing industry
involving grain as raw materials in China has begun to be regulated.
Several applied research institutions in China are organizing research on the proposal of
ammonia fuel. Similarly, ammonia fuel, like ethanol, is likely to be required to choose a new
production capacity path in China because it competes with grain for fertilizer.
Hydrogen is being raised to a higher level to carry out application research due to the very
clean nature of secondary energy. However, due to the multi node challenges of investment
intensity, infrastructure construction, safety precautions, strict control and implementation,
from the perspective of hydrogen energy sources, there are new ways to seek industrialized
applications in China and the world.
Methanol. On the basis of maintaining the basic properties of its chemical raw materials, it is
expanding to energy properties. With the energy advantages of low-carbon clean fuels, it is
widely used in the field of power combustion and thermal combustion. Methanol fuel is a
liquid storage, transportation and filling method at normal temperature and pressure, which
can be used as a substitute and supplement for fossil energy.
The mass hydrogen storage density of methanol is 12.5% (125 kg hydrogen / T methanol);
70MPa high-pressure gas cylinder stores hydrogen, and the mass hydrogen storage density
is about 4-6%; Low temperature liquid hydrogen (-253 ℃), mass hydrogen storage density is
about 7%. The above comparison also shows the advantages and advantages of the
coordinated development of methanol and hydrogen energy.
The basic data of this report is based on the manufacturing and operation industries of
Chinese fishing boats and general cargo ships and the basic status quo, with reference to
the known data in the field of international shipping and the data published by IMO. The data
compiled and included in the report will inevitably be different from the actual situation, but
the difference will not affect the reader's judgment and practical application. During the
editing process of the report, we have consulted a large number of domestic and foreign
literatures and publicly published data, and we would like to thank the author and data
provider for quoting the original text.
China's methanol power combustion and combustion application technology has matured,
and the development of methanol economy is becoming a consensus in the energy field. We
hope to carry out technical exchanges and cooperation with our counterparts in the field of
energy preparation and energy application all over the world, so as to jointly promote the
realization of the overall goal of human carbon and environmental governance.
This section report was compiled by:
Wei Anli,Yang Huizhong and Li Jianhua of Steering Committee of Methanol Vehicle Promotion And Application
Experts of The Ministry of Industry And Information Technology
Xin Qiangzhi and Niu Zhijian of China Zichai Power Co., Ltd and China Zichai Machinery Co., Ltd
Li Hongting and Xu Yanke of China Jiangsu Changzhou Lvchuang New Energy Power Technology Co., Ltd
Gao Jiming and Wu Yanbing of China Guangdong Nengchuang Technology Co., Ltd
Cao Song and Liu Yang of China Jingjiang Guozhou Fuel Co., Ltd
Cao YeXin of Jingjiang Maritime Department, Taizhou Maritime Safety Administration, Jiangsu, China
Chen Hailiang of Jiangsu Jingjiang market supervision and Administration Bureau, China
20th July,2022

Ammonia as fuel for marine engines
This section was written by DTI and DTU, Denmark.
Ammonia combustion properties
Ammonia has an octane rating of 110-130 RON. This could indicate that ammonia is suitable
for spark ignited engines. The laminar flame speed of pure ammonia is however very low,
which means that it takes a long time for the combustion to complete, compared to regular
gasoline or other fuels.
The slow combustion of ammonia also makes it difficult to ignite and burn in conventional
diesel engines. Researchers have successfully experimented with mixing ammonia with
more flammable gases, such as hydrogen, methane, and dimethyl ether, to increase the
combustion rate. Such combustion principles may be applicable to future engines, but it will
require a willingness to handle additional fuels onboard ships, which is not desirable today.
Catalytic decomposition of ammonia to hydrogen and nitrogen could be used to improve the
combustion process. Hydrogen can be ignited in a very wide mixing ration with air and has a
very high flame speed, which makes it useful as ignition promoter. Research has shown that
ammonia can be ignited well when mixed with 10 % (vol.) of hydrogen.
Plans for ammonia powered ships
As of 2023, no ships are powered by ammonia fuelled engines.
Intentions of building the first ammonia engine powered ship for delivery in 2025 was
announced as a Memorandum of Understanding in June 2022 (The Maritime Executive,
2022), by the company Eastern Pacific. Engines will be delivered by MAN, who is currently
developing and testing the 2-stroke combustion concept for ammonia.
WinGD has announced a joint development of ammonia engines with the company
CMB.TECH. The engines are to be delivered for new ships from 2025.
Ammonia DF engines under development
The most realistic way to use ammonia for now is in DF engines, with a large quantity of pilot
fuel to ensure that the ammonia is ignited and burns to completion. This principle is being
developed by engine designers MAN ES and WinGD for 2-stroke engines and may also be
developed for 4-stroke medium speed engines.
2-stroke ammonia engine development
Marine 2-stroke engines operate at low speeds, typically less than 200 RPM. The low
rotational speed of the 2-stroke engine is an important factor, as it improves conditions for
ignition and complete combustion of pure ammonia. Ammonia can be ignited by injection of
fuel oil, in the well proven DF principle.
In 2022, the 2-stroke division of MAN Energy Solutions started preparing a stationary 2-
stroke research engine for combustion of ammonia. The engine design has four injectors per
cylinder, with two dedicated for injection of liquid ammonia, while the other two are dedicated
fuel oil injection. Ammonia is injected into the cylinder when combustion of the pilot fuel
takes place and burns in a diffusion flame type combustion process. In September 2023,
MAN announced that they had successfully demonstrated ammonia combustion in their test
engine. MAN ES aims at having this principle ready and delivered to a shipyard in 2024.
WinGD is currently also developing DF 2-stroke engines for ammonia. According to press
releases, the company has received orders on ammonia DF engines, with delivery planned

in the beginning of 2025.
4-stroke ammonia engine development
Medium speed 4-stroke marine engines operate at 500-1000 RPM, which makes it even
more challenging to develop a combustion principle for a slow burning fuel like ammonia.
Development of combustion principles for ammonia in 4-stroke engines is ongoing with large
engine designers such as Wärtsilä and MAN, but there is very little specific information
available to indicate at which state this development is.
Emissions and exhaust after-treatment requirements for ammonia engines
Ammonia is envisioned as a future fuel with zero direct emissions of carbon. Eliminating
carbon emissions completely from future ships will become an important contribution in
meeting the IMO goal of 70 % reduction of greenhouse gases from 2050 (IMO, IMO’s work
to cut GHG emissions from ships, u.d.).
Ammonia as fuel can potentially reduce not only direct emissions of CO2, but also SO2 and
particulate emissions. The specific reductions will depend mainly on the specific engine
technology.
Emissions from fuel oil pilot combustion
Current development is focused on DF combustion of ammonia with fuel oil pilot combustion,
which reduces, but does not eliminate, emissions related to fuel oil combustion.
Fuel oil with very low sulfur content (less than 0.1 % sulfur) for pilot combustion will provide
the best conditions for efficient NOX reduction. Reducing SO2 formation will also help to
prevent ABS formation in the SCR, and thereby allow the SCR catalyst to operate at low
exhaust temperature, at which point high concentrations of unburned ammonia can be
expected.
Future combustion concepts for ammonia may be using other fuels for ignition or enhancing
the combustion properties of ammonia, such as hydrogen, methane or DME. This will reduce
the emissions further than the current concepts being developed.
NOX and ammonia slip
Demonstration and research concepts with ammonia as engine fuel have previously shown
high levels of NOX, which require aftertreatment to meet IMO Tier II/III. High levels of
ammonia slip can also occur at specific operating conditions, such as low and medium load.
SCR catalysts can reduce the NOX with the ammonia present in the exhaust stream. In this
conversion, NO reacts with NH3 in the ratio 1:1, to produce water and pure nitrogen.
Ammonia can be added to the exhaust to balance the reaction and provide a high reduction
rate of NOX, while surplus ammonia leaving the SCR can be oxidized after SCR with a
separate catalyst. This way, both pollutants are effectively reduced.
As a safety measure against large leaks, ammonia can also be removed simply with water
mist scrubbers, as water binds ammonia very effectively.
Nitrous Oxide
The combustion of ammonia may also result in formation of N2O, also known as laughter
gas. This gas is a potent greenhouse gas with a GWP of 273 (EPA 2022). With this factor,
an exhaust concentration of only 100 ppm will correspond to 2.73 % CO2, which is
unacceptable considering that CO2 reduction is the key motivation for using ammonia.
N2O is a potentially problematic emission since it is more chemically stable than NOX. The

exhaust gas temperature will likely be insufficient to convert N2O efficiently with current
known catalysts, and low load operation will present an even larger challenge for N2O
conversion.
Currently, there is very limited knowledge about the levels of N2O that may be expected from
ammonia combustion, and hence the need to develop new catalysts or other processes
targeting N2O is also unclear. Given the challenge of reducing N2O with catalysts, it is likely
that research and development of combustion engines fueled with ammonia will have to
improve the understanding of the mechanisms that lead to formation of N2O and use this
knowledge to design the engines and choose combustion strategies that limit formation of
N2O to acceptable levels.
Ammonia as fuel for fuel cells
High temperature SOFC fuels can utilize ammonia directly as fuel, where it is decomposed
into hydrogen and nitrogen internally in the fuel cell. SOFC fuel cells of either oxygen anion
(SOFC-O) or proton conducting (SOFC-H) type can be used.
The conversion of ammonia to hydrogen and nitrogen can also be performed before the fuel
cell stack. If the gas is cleaned for unreacted ammonia, it may also be used to feed low and
high temperature PEM fuel cells, which are sensitive to impurities such as ammonia.
(Georgina Jeerh, 2021)
Emissions and after-treatment requirements with ammonia fuel cells
As with hydrogen fuel cells, only water is produced in the reaction with hydrogen and
oxygen. The nitrogen can however react to form NO by reaction of oxygen anions. In SOFC-
O type fuel cells, formation of NO with ammonia is avoided by using a catalyst with a low
selectivity against NO formation.
Unreacted ammonia from incomplete conversion in external catalytic converters and from
direct ammonia fuel cells can be minimized by proper design. Ammonia oxidation catalysts
can be used to further reduce ammonia to acceptable levels in the exhaust stream.
.
Ammonia combustion in a small 4-stroke diesel engine
This section was written by DTU, Denmark.
Ammonia application in CI engines.
This section describes the investigation carried out at The Technical University of Denmark
in relation to IEA Advanced Motor Fuels TCP Task 60. A more detailed description of the
experimental results is published elsewhere (Førby, 2023). The purpose with this study was
to investigate the performance of ammonia when applied to a compression ignition engine.
The goal was to apply as high share of ammonia as possible in a dual fuel concept where
the ammonia combustion is initiated with a pilot diesel like fuel.
Ammonia in combustion engines
Spark-ignition (SI) engines have been demonstrated to operate on ammonia for many years,
with important work performed in the 1960’s (E. S. Starkman, “Ammonia as a spark engine
fuel: Theory and application”. In: SAE Transactions 75 (1967), pp. 765–784. DOI:
10.4271/670946., 1967), and renewed interest has increased the research in recent years.
Many SI-engine studies have used ammonia mixed with hydrogen for improved combustion
stability due to the high flame speed of hydrogen [ (Fredrik R. Westlye, 2013), (Gentili.,
2013), (Lhuillier, 2019), (Mercier, 2022), (Mørch, 2010)]. Compared to conventional

hydrocarbon combustion, using ammonia generally yields higher NO- and N2O-emissions.
N2O has a global warming potential of 298 with climate-carbon feedback (265 without)
(Stocker, 2013), which makes it highly relevant for emission studies. It has been shown that
fuel in crevice volumes was essential for nitrogen-based emissions (Fredrik R. Westlye,
2013). Using ammonia as a fuel for compression ignition (CI) engines remains a great
challenge due to the high auto-ignition temperature of ammonia – more than 400 K higher
than that of diesel at atmospheric conditions (Pavlos Dimitriou, 2019)– meaning that
compression ratios higher than 35:1 are required for ammonia-only CI operation [ (Gray,
1967), (E. S. Starkman, “Ammonia as a diesel engine fuel: Theory and application”. In: SAE
Transactions 76 (1968), pp. 3193–3212. DOI: 10.4271/670946., 1968)]. Other challenges for
ammonia operation is the high heat of vaporization, which significantly decreases in-cylinder
temperature after injection (Charles G. Garabedian, 1966). Ammonia/air mixtures also have
a low flame speed, generally around 1/5 of methane/air mixtures (Kobayashi, 2018), and
hence large fuel slips can be observed using ammonia. As mentioned, hydrogen can be
used to increase combustion speed. Due to these challenges, most studies regarding
ammonia in CI engines are dual-fuel operation (Pavlos Dimitriou, 2019), often using diesel
as a pilot fuel.
Reiter et al (Aaron J. Reiter, “Demonstration of compression-ignition engine combustion
using ammonia in reducing greenhouse gas emissions”. In: Energy and Fuels (2008). DOI:
10 . 1021 /, 2008) used a dual-fuel configuration with premixed ammonia and direct-injected
diesel and varied the fuel contributions, first with 10-45 % energy contribution, then later
(Aaron J. Reiter, 2010) from 0 % (diesel only) to around 80 %. Among their key findings
were that small amounts of ammonia energy yielded high brake-specific fuel consumption
(BSFC) of ammonia due to very lean ammonia-air mixtures, while high ammonia energy
showed high BSFC of diesel due to low temperatures. They also found that using small
amounts of ammonia (eg. 5-20 %) decreases the in-cylinder temperature resulting in
decreased NO-emissions and increased and CO-emissions, compared to diesel-only. Larger
amounts of ammonia energy (>50 %) significantly increased NO emissions due to fuel-
bound nitrogen. However, another study with port-injected aqueous ammonium and direct-
injected diesel (Frost, 2021) showed the opposite trend of Reiter’s results regarding NO-
emissions: as ammonia contribution was increased from 0 % to 10 % energy-contribution,
the NO-emissions initially increased due to fuel-bound nitrogen, while larger amounts of
ammonia (to 25 %) showed a decrease in NO due to lower temperatures.
The vapour pressure of ammonia is similar to that of dimethyl ether (DME), which has a
cetane-number higher than that of diesel, and this makes it attractive to improve the CI
combustion properties of ammonia by mixing it with DME for a single-fuel CI-operation.
Gross (Christopher W. Gross, 2013) found that, compared to 100 % DME, the ammonia-
DME mixture showed higher CO- and NO-emissions due to low temperatures and fuel-
bound nitrogen, as well as higher ignition delay and cyclic variations. Another study (Kyung
Hyun Ryu, 2013), also employing a DME-ammonia mixture, with up to 60 % ammonia,
showed similar results. With 60 % ammonia very early injection, -340 to -90 CAD ATDC
(Crank Angle Degrees After Top Dead Center) was necessary, which showed HCCI
(Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition) combustion with very abrupt heat release and
high cyclic variations at low loads due to incomplete combustion, which also dramatically
increased hydrocarbon- (HC) and CO emissions. A spark-assisted compression ignition
(SACI) operation has recently been shown to run on neat ammonia (Mounaïm-Rousselle,
2021). SACI uses a spark for early partial combustion to increase the temperature, enabling
compression-ignition for the main combustion. However, the two phases were not
distinguished, and SI-like operation was obtained.

The DTU CI engine setup
In this investigation, a dual-fuel concept with premixed ammonia and direct-injected n-
heptane (C7H16) was applied, and ammonia-energy contribution was varied from 80-98%.
The high ammonia-energy was possible by using a GDI (Gasoline Direct Injection) nozzle
and using n-heptane as the pilot fuel, since this has low viscosity and high cetane number.
Some representative values of viscosity and cetane number for both diesel and n-heptane
are shown in Table 28. Using a more viscous pilot fuel make very small injections difficult
with the GDI nozzle and yield larger spray droplets.
Table 28 Viscosity and cetane numbers of diesel and n-heptane for comparison. *Minimum cetane number and
cetane index is 51 and 46, respectively, in EN 590 diesel fuel standard. **Multiple values presented without
specification of cetane number or index.
The engine tests were performed with a BUKH DV 24 ME, a 2-cylinder compression-ignited
diesel engine with a total displacement volume of 964 cc , a compression ratio of 18 and a
maximum power of 17.6 kW from the factory. One cylinder was unchanged and thus
operated normally with diesel, while the test-cylinder operated on ammonia as described
here. Having a normally operating diesel-cylinder was useful for both motoring purposes,
engine start-up and for altering fuel injection in the test cylinder without unstable operation.
For the test cylinder, gaseous ammonia was aspirated into the intake manifold, and n-
heptane was injected directly into the cylinder as a pilot fuel to ignite the ammonia-air
mixture. n-heptane start of injection (SOI) was 20 CAD BTDC (Crank Angle Degrees Before
Top Dead Center) (except when stated otherwise). Earlier SOI – eg. 100-50 CAD BTDC –
would result in HCCI-like operation, which was not the purpose of these experiments. As the
test engine was not equipped with a common rail system, the n-heptane was pressurized by
liquid nitrogen. Due to limitations on the fuel pump, a max. pressure of 120 bars was used.
Emissions of certain species (CO, CO2, NH3, NO and N2O) were measured using Fourier
Transform Infra-Red (FTIR) measurement. An illustration of the test engine setup is shown in
Figure 64.
Pressure data was obtained by means of a pressure sensor located as illustrated in the
experimental cylinder. The rate of heat release (QHR) was then calculated from the pressure
data the usual way, derived from the first law of thermodynamics:
(γ, p, V, θ = isentropic heat capacity ratio, pressure, volume, crank angle degree)

Figure 64 DTU Test engine set-up.
Results
Figure 65 shows the rate of heat release observed when increasing the ammonia energy
share from 80% to 98,5% with a constant overall λ = 1,1 (excess air ratio), by decreasing the
pilot fuel flow and increasing the ammonia flow. It was chosen to keep the global λ and Start
Of Injection (SOI) constant, and consequently allow some variation in IMEP (Indicated Mean
Effective Pressure) with changing energy contributions, because the purpose of the study
was investigating the ignition and combustion processes. For engine concept feasibility the
IMEP should be constant while using maximum brake torque SOI. The value of λ = 1,1 was
chosen from initial studies showing high indicated efficiencies at this value. The high
ammonia-energy was possible by using a GDI nozzle and using n-heptane as the pilot fuel,
since this has low viscosity and high cetane number
With 80 % ammonia energy, a brief initial peak in heat release rate can be identified before a
longer and slightly lower heat release rate takes place. The initial peak is most likely
combustion of pilot fuel, and the longer and lower heat release is ammonia combustion. As
the ammonia energy is increased – and the pilot fuel is correspondingly decreased – the
initial peak decreases, as should be expected. As the amount of ammonia is increased, the
ammonia combustion is seen to reach higher heat release rates. The corresponding
integrated heat releases are shown in Figure 66, normalized by the total fuel energy injected.
An important result obtained from Figure 66 is that the higher levels of NH3 result in a more
complete combustion, as a larger share of the fuel energy is extracted through heat release.
Related to this, the ammonia slip is shown in Figure 67, where it is seen to decrease with a
higher ammonia energy share. Since the increased ammonia energy means an increase in
total amount of ammonia and increased ammonia concentration, this should also mean more
fuel in crevice volumes. For this reason, it is interesting that the ammonia-slip is reduced
with higher ammonia energy, clearly indicating a better ammonia combustion with higher
ammonia content. The reason for this is discussed elsewhere, (Winther, 2022).

Figure 65 Heat release rates for increasing ammonia energy, with a constant λ = 1.1
Summary
The investigation has shown that it is possible to apply high share of ammonia in a CI
engine. As high as 98% ammonia was applied successfully in a dual fuel concept, and the
indicated efficiency for this concept was actually higher, compared to operation with diesel
fuel on this engine. 98% ammonia is a much higher ammonia share than anticipated, based
on earlier studies.
The combustion efficiency increased with higher share of ammonia in relation to pilot fuels in
the range 80% - 98% ammonia.

Figure 66 Integrated heat release curves with increasing ammonia energy and constant λ = 1.1, normalized by
the total fuel energy and shifted to begin combustion from 0 heat released.
Figure 67 Ammonia-slip and indicated efficiency ηi vs. ammonia energy share with constant λ = 1.1. ηi=28,3%
with pure diesel operation)

Ammonia for gasoline-type engines
This section was written by KSOE, Korea.
Since the critical threat of the climate change shadow grows year by year, it is not a surprise
that instead of choosing gasoline or diesel engines one might select better candidates to
deal with future mobility, resource equity and environmental sustainability altogether. In the
transportation sector, ammonia, as a carbon-free fuel, is on the spotlight to sort things out in
terms of GHG emission problems. Ammonia, adequately used, does not generate any GHG
even in commercialized combustion systems.
Ammonia fuel was investigated to replace gasoline through the conversion of a conventional
gasoline engine with ammonia fuel system. Though the flame speed of ammonia is 5 times
lower than gasoline, the ammonia-gasoline dual fuel shows enhanced combustion
characteristics because gasoline acts as a combustion promoter and brings about faster
combustion of all the cylinder charge. To this end, an ammonia-gasoline dual fuel system
was constructed and a programmable engine controller was also developed to make both
ammonia and gasoline injected separately into the intake manifold in liquid phases.
Although ammonia showed 55% lower energy content than gasoline, the ammonia-air
mixture at a certain volume denoted quite comparable strength compared to gasoline. The
reason for this response was based on ammonia requiring less air quantity. Thus, theoretical
air to fuel ratios of 6 could be employed, which are only 40% of gasoline, hence enabling
similar mixture power as that of gasoline on a combustible mixture basis.
Measured torque outputs at full load condition were also comparable for both cases, i.e.
dual-fuel and pure gasoline combustion, with up to 70% of ammonia energy fraction. Above
that fraction, clear evidence emerged about the incomplete combustion of ammonia,
producing large quantities of unburned ammonia slip, thus decreasing power output.
Although the spark timing was advanced up to 40 degrees BTDC to have similar trends in
pressure rise or power output as in the combustion of pure gasoline, it was evident that
beyond 70% the process was sacrificed.
The test engine showed quite good performance in terms of power output and emissions
with high ammonia fraction. As a result, ammonia was used as main fuel to replace 70% of
gasoline and the same amount of carbon emission such as CO2, CO, THC reduced in the
engine out emissions. After the installation of the ammonia-gasoline dual fuel system into the
test engine, a prototype vehicle named ‘AmVeh’ was built and run successfully to
demonstrate ammonia as a carbon-free fuel at the ready.

Figure 68 Korean research program focused mostly on gasoline engines.
Figure 69 Ammonia can serve directly as a fuel or as a hydrogen carrier.

Figure 70 Ammonia is a common and widely available chemical.
Figure 71 Ammonia was used as fuel for trucks, buses and rocket planes in the past.

Figure 72 Ammonia can be used in dual-fuel applications with gasoline or propane, or directly in hydrogen
engines by reforming of NH3 to H2.
Figure 73 Some challenging properties of ammonia as a fuel.

Figure 74 A dual fuel stoichiometric port injected ammonia-gasoline engine.
Figure 75 Slow burning is a principal feature of ammonia when used as a fuel.

Figure 76 Mixtures above 60% ammonia reduce engine performance.
Figure 77 Mixtures above 60% ammonia lead to higher unburnt hydrocarbon emissions.

Figure 78 Mixtures above 60% ammonia lead to higher NOx and ammonia emissions.
Figure 79 A working dual fuel ammonia-gasoline vehicle.

Figure 80 Engine-out CO2 can be reduced by roughly 70% with ammonia.

Hydrogen as a marine fuel
The most recent statistics provided by DNV AFI show that only 4 vessels are registered as
operating with hydrogen. 3 of these are using hydrogen in DF engines with diesel pilot
ignition, the last is using hydrogen fuel cells. 6 more ships with DF engines are on order and
17 ships are to be equipped with hydrogen fuel cells for delivery until 2028.
Military vessels such as small submarines, which are not included in the statistic, are known
to be equipped with PEM fuel cells, which are powered by liquid hydrogen or methanol.
These fuel cells provide longer range than traditional battery solutions, and provide stealthy
operation, which is crucial to submarines, even when operating at surface level.
With the inherent difficulties and safety issues related to handling and storage of hydrogen, it
has not been considered as a feasible alternative fuel for ships until very recently.
Hydrogen storage
The heating value of hydrogen is about 120 MJ/kg, which is approx. three times higher than
marine fuel oil. The density of hydrogen is however very low. Onboard storage of hydrogen
requires either carbon fiber reinforced cylinders with 350-700 bar of pressure or cryogen
storage tanks at -253 °C (20 Kelvin). Both solutions are expensive, but cryogen storage is
likely the safest and most cost efficient for large volumes of hydrogen.
Onboard conversion of hydrogen from ammonia
Hydrogen may be produced onboard by catalytic cracking of ammonia. In this case, the fuel
stream will contain both hydrogen, ammonia, and nitrogen, which can either be purified
further and used for fuel cells or supplied to a combustion engine as a mixture.
PEM Fuel Cells generally require high purity hydrogen and are sensible to exposure of
ammonia. The company RenCat (now acquired by Alfa Laval) has developed and patented
technology for cracking ammonia and purification of hydrogen for fuel cell application.
In a combustion engine, the mixing ratio of hydrogen and ammonia can be used to control
the combustion behavior to match the operating condition, e.g., by controlling reaction speed
to limit combustion pressure.
Hydrogen as fuel for fuel cells
When hydrogen is used in a fuel cell it combines with oxygen in an electrochemical process
that produces electricity. Fuel cells have a thermal efficiency of 50-60 % depending on the
load. The conversion of hydrogen produces water vapor as the only biproduct, and fuel cells
do therefore not require any exhaust after-treatment.
Low and high temperature PEM fuel cells are arguably the most efficient way to produce
power from hydrogen in small scale applications and vehicles. PEM fuel cells are however
dependent on expensive catalyst metals and require high purity hydrogen. For large power
demands a more economical solution may be found with high temperature SOFC fuel cells,
which are based on less costly ceramic materials. The SOFC cells are more tolerant to fuel
impurities but are more fragile and susceptible to wear and damage from thermal cycling.
The Norwegian ferry M/F Hydra (NORLED, u.d.) is powered by 2x 200 kW fuel cells with
liquid hydrogen onboard.
The largest hydrogen vessel announced to date will be a DFDS ferry (DFDS, 2020) (Europa
Seaways), which is planned to be powered by a 23 MW hydrogen fuel cell system. The ferry

is planned to operate between Oslo and Copenhagen from 2027, with a capacity of 1800
passengers and 380 cars or 120 lorries The build is however relying on funding from EU,
which is currently not secured.
Hydrogen as fuel for combustion engines
Hydrogen has excellent ignition and combustion characteristics, which makes it suitable as a
pure fuel in combustion engines operating with premixed combustion. Hydrogen has a very
wide flammability limit, which makes it possible to operate with very lean mixtures and hence
low loads.
In marine engines, hydrogen can either be utilized as substitute for methane (LNG) in spark
ignited 4-stroke engines, or in dual fuel solutions instead of LNG, with fuel oil or biodiesel as
ignition source.
The company CMB.TECH has modified engines for dual fuel operation with hydrogen, which
is installed on 2 crew transfer vessels and 1 tug.
Emissions with hydrogen as fuel for combustion engines
Combustion of hydrogen in combustion engines produces mainly water, but also some NOX
due to the high in-cylinder temperature. The NOX can be removed with SCR or reduced to
acceptable levels with internal or external EGR.
Hydrogen combustion does not result in PM, SOX or volatile organic emissions. After-
treatment with SCR or efficient EGR management will therefore result in a very clean
exhaust gas.

Liquefied gases (LNG/LEG/LPG) as marine fuels
In the last two decades, LNG has taken a leading role as a clean burning alternative to fuel
oil in new ships.
New ships designed to operate partly or fully in ECAs must comply both with the fuel sulfur
limit and the IMO Tier III regulation. For engines designed for high-sulfur fuel oil operation,
they must be equipped both with an EGR/SCR solution and a SOX scrubber.
Today, LNG may represent an acceptable alternative to continued use of fuel oils to many
ship owners. LNG eliminates the need for SOX removal by scrubbers and improves the
operating conditions and lifetime of the SCR systems used for Tier III compliance. It also
improves the EEDI (energy efficiency design index) for new ships, compared to fuel oil.
Definitions of liquid gases
LNG (liquefied natural gas) consists mainly of methane, with minor concentrations of ethane
and trace amounts of other gases. It is used mainly as a general-purpose fuel for heating
and power production. It is transported from production sites in liquid state in large carrier
ships and distributed as a gas in large networks across many developed countries in the
world.
LEG is liquefied ethane gas, which is a high purity product used mainly for production of
ethylene, which again is used for production of plastics.
LPG is liquefied petroleum gas, consisting of butane and propane. It is used as fuel in many
applications such as heating, cooking and as fuel for some engines used in trucks and light
vehicles.
LNG, LEG and LPG have excellent ignition and combustion properties and can be used in
marine engines. The most common engine types using LNG as fuel today are the DF
engines (both 2 and 4-stroke), which use a diesel pilot injection to ignite the methane. Some
ships, however, use monofuel SI LNG engines, which are not capable of using other fuel
types.
The most common fuel type of the above is LNG, which will be the focus for the rest of this
chapter. LEG and LPG are used mainly as fuel on gas carriers transporting these gases,
with 2-stroke DF engines designed specifically for these gas types.
Storage of liquid gases
LNG is stored in cryogenic tanks onboard in its liquid state at around -162 °C, with a
permissible vapor pressure of 25 kPa. The gas is evaporated and pressurized before use in
2-stroke and 4-stroke dual fuel engines which propel the ship.
LPG and LEG are also stored in liquid state at low temperatures. LEG is liquid at around -89
°C and LPG at -42 °C, which is the boiling point of propane.
Background for use of LNG in ships
Natural gas has been used as the primary fuel for many years in LNG carriers, which utilize
boil-off gas (BOG) for their engines. Until the late 1990s, the standard solution was to burn
evaporated gas in boilers, which provided steam for steam turbines.
From around the year 2000, new-built LNG carriers were equipped with large 4-stroke DF
engines, which were more efficient than the steam turbine solutions. In 2015, even more
efficient 2-stroke dual fuel engines became available for new ships.

The 4-stroke DF engines used for LNG carriers were also used for offshore supply ships and
other medium sized ships such as ferries in Norway, starting from 2003.
State of use
Since 2015, when the first 2-stroke DF engines for LNG became available, the market for
LNG powered ships has grown rapidly.
DNV AFI provides a detailed insight into the specific ship types which use LNG. The
statistics do not include LNG carriers and floating LNG production units and terminals, which
also use LNG as fuel for their engines. Figure 81 provides an overview of number of
operational and orders 5 years ahead for LNG powered ships, excluding the carriers.
Detailed statistics on LNG powered ships and LNG carriers are instead available on the
website sea-lng.org (SEA-LNG Ltd., 2020) . According to sea-LNG, approximately 10-20 %
of all new ordered ships are to be powered by LNG.
Figure 81: LNG fueled ships in operation and on order (excluding LNG carriers)
Engine types
DF 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines are designed to operate with LNG but can also use fuel oil
as the primary fuel if LNG is not available. The DF engine is the most common choice for all
ship types.
Monofuel gas engines are designed with a prechamber solution, in which a spark plug
ignites a stoichiometric fuel/air mixture. The resulting combustion is used for ignition of the
premixed lean cylinder charge. These engines cannot switch to using fuel oil. Some of the
large vessels with monofuel engines are passenger ferries owned by shipping companies
Fjord Line and Stena Line. These ships operate in the North Sea and Baltic Sea ECAs
without exhaust aftertreatment of NOX or SOX.
LNG Ready and retrofitting for LNG DF
LNG Ready is a term for ships that are technically prepared for later conversion to LNG dual
fuel operation. This preparation is made to many ships since it is generally less expensive to
make these preparations during construction rather than as a full retrofit later. The LNG
ready ships are included in the DNV AFI statistics for LNG fuelled ships, so the number of

ships operating with LNG is somewhat lower than indicated above. Please refer to further
information at DNV, which is the leading company for classification for LNG powered ships.
As of 2023, only 20 ships globally have been retrofitted for operation with LNG, and only 5
more retrofits are ordered. It is generally a very comprehensive task to retrofit the
installations for LNG, including tanks, safety measures and engine modifications. This
means that the advantage in terms of fuel cost savings must be significant for a retrofit to be
performed with existing ships.
LNG infrastructure ship types
LNG carriers
Currently, the world fleet of LNG carriers counts around 640 ships. These carriers
transported around 370 million tons of LNG from production sites to consumers in 2021
(Internatinal Gas Union, 2022), which makes LNG one of the largest markets for product
transportation.
Most LNG carriers are very large vessels. The average LNG carrier transports between
125,000 and 150,000 m3 of LNG, and the largest can transport up to 266,000 m3 of LNG.
The carriers commonly use the same LNG that they transport as cargo, as fuel for their DF
engines.
LNG infrastructure vessels
In addition to the LNG carriers, around 39 LNG bunker vessels are currently in service, with
18 more orders confirmed. These are part of the fuelling infrastructure for LNG powered
ships, with great importance in regions were land-based LNG refuelling infrastructure is not
in place.
Distribution of LNG to shore is often performed by ships directly to shore terminals which
feed the gas into the natural gas grid. Around 50 ships are specifically built for regasification
of the liquid LNG, which should otherwise be performed at shore-based terminals. The
motivation for using ships is not only the flexibility of this solution, but also because shore
terminals are very expensive and takes years to build. The term used for these vessels are
FSRU (Floating Storage and Regasification Unit). They are in many cases decommissioned
LNG carriers, which are rebuild for the task of regasification.
The LNG carriers and FSRU ships now play a critical role in supplying Europe with LNG, to
replace the natural gas which was previously supplied in pipelines into the EU from Russia.
About 25 FSRU ships have been leased by EU countries, in preparation for an increase in
LNG deliveries to Europe from gas fields in Qatar and the US.
Transport of LEG and LPG
LEG and LPG are transported at sea as cryogenic liquid in large volume carriers. The
transported volume is however not as large as LNG. According to DNV AFI, there are
currently 87 LPG carriers and 9 LEG carriers, which are comparable in size and operating
principle to the LNG carriers. They also use the cargo as fuel, with engines that can use
either LPG or LNG
As fuel, LPG and LEG have the same advantages in terms of emissions as LNG, with zero
sulfur and low NOX (Berg, 2021). In addition, emissions of unburned fuel from LPG and LEG
do not have a strong greenhouse effect like methane.

Emissions and exhaust after-treatment requirements for DF gas engines.
LNG has been used as marine fuel for more than 20 years in ships, as a cleaner alternative
to fuel oil and to reach compliance with IMO NOX and SOX regulations. NOX compliance,
however, depends on the specific engine technology.
Tier III compliance
4-stroke DF engines operate with premixed lean combustion of natural gas, which results in
a low formation of NOx that does not require after-treatment. These engines are therefore
Tier III compliant when operating in DF mode with LNG as the primary fuel.
2-stroke DF engines with direct high-pressure injection operate with a diffusion-controlled
combustion, which leads to NOX formation comparable to fuel oil combustion. These engines
require after-treatment by SCR or EGR to reach Tier III compliance.
2-stroke DF engines using low-pressure gas admission concepts burn the gas in a lean
premixed combustion (Otto principle) which reduces NOx formation. These engines are
equipped with EGR as standard, which is sufficient for Tier III compliance.
2-stroke DF engines designed for LPG or LEG also operate with direct high-pressure
injection and must use EGR or SCR for Tier III compliance.
SOX compliance
Due to the absence of sulfur in LNG, DF engines using LNG also automatically satisfies the
sulfur limit in ECA zones. The DF LNG engine can therefore be a cost-effective solution to
ensure both IMO Tier III and sulfur compliance in ECA zones, as an alternative to using
monofuel diesel engines with LSFO and SCR catalysts.
While LNG does not contain sulfur, the fuel used for pilot combustion does. The amount of
fuel oil used in pilot combustion is however normally only around 5 %, which means that the
emissions will be sulfur compliant in ECA zones even with 0.5 % S fuel in pilot injections.
The fuel carriage ban ensures that the ship emissions will be compliant in cases where LNG
cannot be used, e.g., due to fuel system failures that prevent fueling the engines with LNG.
Ships without scrubbers are not allowed to carry fuel oil with more than 0.5 % S in
international waters and must also carry 0.1 % S fuel for operation in ECA zones. LNG
powered ships will therefore generally not have a requirement for SOX scrubbers.
PM emissions
LNG combustion reduces emissions of particulate matter, both in dual fuel engines and in
pure gas engines. Methane burns with very low formation of soot in dual fuel combustion.
The soot is mainly produced by pilot oil and lubrication oil combustion.
It may be argued that particulate filters are possible but unnecessary with LNG ships. They
may however be relevant for reducing emissions from certain ship types, such as passenger
ferries or cruise ships, to levels which are comparable to vehicles.
Methane emissions
Despite being a very clean fuel, LNG can also result in relatively high emissions of methane,
a strong greenhouse gas with a GWP of about 86 in a 20-year time frame. Methane
emissions can occur when the natural gas is extracted, cleaned and liquified, and in the
transport chain. Some engine types are also known to have slips of methane in the order of
1-5 % of the methane supplied to the engine. This is in some cases more than enough to
offset the lower CO2 emission from LNG engines, as the CO2 equivalent emission exceeds
that of engines powered by fuel oil. Due to lack of regulation, there has not been any

requirement to measure methane in the exhaust for certification, and thus methane slip is
not included in the calculation of CO2 equivalent emissions.
The methane slip is primarily a problem related to 4-stroke engines, which operate with
premixed gas combustion. Methane trapped in small crevice volumes between piston and
cylinder liner does not burn but escapes the cylinder without even burning in the exhaust.
The slip was known to be large with the first engine generations but has since been reduced
to levels below 1 %.
2-stroke engines using a low-pressure injection principle and a lean premixed combustion
process (WinGD X-DF and MAN GA designs) can have methane slips comparable to or
lower than new generation 4-stroke DF engines.
2-stroke engines from MAN ES using the high-pressure gas direct injection, ensures an
almost complete combustion of the gas in a diffusion-controlled combustion process, like
that used for diesel. These 2-stroke engines therefore have very low methane emissions.
Methane emissions have been documented by direct measurements, which clearly show the
difference in emissions across engine technologies (Ushakov, S., Stenersen, D. & Einang,
P.M. ). Finnish researchers provided a statistical study on methane emission levels in 2021,
based on measurements from land on exhaust emissions from passing LNG powered ships
(Grönholm, 2021). These studies have confirmed that the methane slip can be high with
engines operating with low-pressure injection (premixed combustion type), while engines
with high pressure direct injection have very low emissions of methane.
The International Council in Clean Transportation (ICCT) has studied the climate effect of
using LNG as marine fuel, compared to MGO, VLSO and HFO (ICCT, 2020). The studies
indicate that using LNG as fuel does not reduce the CO2 equivalent emissions for any
engine types, when upstream methane emissions and methane slip from engines are
included. The CO2 equivalent emissions are shown to be much higher for 4-stroke DF
engines with low pressure port fuel injection, which are known to have the highest methane
slip.
Methane is a very chemically stabile molecule, which is difficult to oxidize with common
catalytic materials at normal exhaust temperatures. Noble metal catalysts such as platinum
could provide an efficient conversion with sufficient exhaust temperature, but these are very
sensitive to sulfur poisoning and will be deactivated in a short time by the sulfur from the pilot
oil combustion.
Work on sulfur tolerant catalysts has been ongoing since the problems with methane slip
were first acknowledged. Progress has been made with experimental catalyst materials that
are more efficient at lower temperatures, and more resilient to sulfur poisoning (Peter
Glarborg/Anker Degn). Companies specializing in catalysts, such as Haldor Topsøe,
Umicore, BASF and other companies who specialize in catalysis, now offer novel catalyst
coatings, which are more sulfur tolerant and more efficient in methane conversion. These
products are, however, not in demand since there is currently no regulation on methane
emissions from marine engines.

Battery electric propulsion systems
With increasing focus on and ambitious targets for the CO2 emissions in the marine sector,
new fuel alternatives with lower carbon footprints are now being considered. These new
fuels however require technologies, which are still in the early stages of development and
demonstration for marine vessels.
The AFI provides an insight in the alternative fuels and propulsion technologies which are
now being used in part to comply with IMO Tier III, fuel sulfur regulations and CO2
reductions. Currently, ships with alternative fuels included in the AFI statistics include ships
equipped with batteries as part of the propulsion and/or power systems, methanol, and
hydrogen. Ammonia will be added to the database later this year.
Battery powered ships
Batteries provide a clean energy source for propulsion and power, and pure electric vessels
are by default compliant with all IMO emission regulations.
The AFI provides an insight to the application of batteries in ships, which covers both hybrid,
plugin hybrid and pure electric. Data are provided and maintained by members of the
Maritime Battery Forum.
According to AFI, almost 500 ships are currently operating with batteries, and an additional
157 ships are ordered. Of those currently in operation, 23 % (128 ships) are pure electric
ships, meaning there is no support from combustion engine generators. 51 % (261 ships)
are hybrid installations, in which case the battery installations are primarily used to increase
efficiency by load shaving. Plug in hybrid accounts for 23 % (90 ships), with the plug-in
addition meaning that the batteries are charged at port stay, which makes sense e.g. in ferry
operation on fixed routes.
Figure 82: Development in battery powered ships. Source: DNV AFI
Figure 82 displays the development in battery powered ships for the last 21 years. Most
ships are newbuilds, but 157 of the 495 in operation are retrofit projects, which to a large
extend are hybridizations with the purpose of saving fuel.
Batteries are currently only feasible as a main propulsion solution on short distances. Most
of the battery installations are found on car/passenger ferries (224 operating, 71 ordered),

which often operate relatively short distances between destinations. On these routes,
replacing decommissioned ships with new battery powered ships is becoming economically
feasible.
The development of battery technology is however moving very fast, and electrification is a
highly relevant topic in the marine sector (Craig, 2020). Several projects are currently in
motion with the aim of demonstrating battery propulsion systems on even large ships. There
are many indications that batteries and electrification will provide a large impact in short
distance shipping within the next decade, as is currently the case with road transportation.

References
Aakko-Saksa, P. M. (2016). Black carbon measurements using different marine fuels. VTT
Technical Research Center of Finland Ltd. Helsinki: 28th CIMAC World Congress, .
Aakko-Saksa, P. T. et al. (2020). Renewable Methanol with Ignition Improver Additive for
Diesel Engines’, Energy and Fuels, 34(1), pp. 379–388. doi:
10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b02654.
Aakko-Saksa, P. T., Lehtoranta, K., Kuittinen, N., Järvinen, A., Jalkanen, J.-P., Johnson, K.,
Jung, H., Ntziachristos, L., Gagné, S., Takahashi, C., Karjalainen, P., Rönkkö, T.,
and Timonen, H. (2023). Reduction in greenhouse gas and other emissions from ship
engines. VTT. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2022.101055
Aaron J. Reiter, S. C. (2008). “Demonstration of compression-ignition engine combustion
using ammonia in reducing greenhouse gas emissions”. In: Energy and Fuels (2008).
DOI: 10 . 1021 /.
Aaron J. Reiter, S. C. (2010). Combustion and emissions characteristics of compression-
ignition engine using dual ammonia-diesel fuel”. In: Fuel 90.1 (2011), pp. 87–97. DOI:
10.1016/j.fuel. 2010.07.055.
B. Schneider et al. (2020). The Flex-OeCoS – a Novel Optically Accessible Test Rig for the
Investigation of Advanced Combustion Processes under Engine-Like Conditions,
Energies 2020, 13(7), 1794; https://doi.org/10.3390/en13071794.
Berg, P. (2021). BW LPG Presentation at DNV Alternative Fuels Online Conference l Making
a Power Move with LPG. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7J2KAZS02I
Bidstrup, R. (2021). [6] , 2021, MAN B&W Ammonia fueled engine development status,
presentation held at 42. Informationstagung zur Schiffsbetriebsforschung, 2021.
Brynolf, S. et al. . (2018). ‘Electrofuels for the transport sector: A review of production costs’,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81(June), pp. 1887–1905. doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.288.
Charles G. Garabedian, J. H. (1966). “The theory of operation of an ammonia burning
internal combustion engine”. In: Defense Technical Information Center.
Christensen, P. W. (n.d.). Head of Technical Affairs at Danish Shipping. (T. D. Pedersen,
Interviewer)
Christopher W. Gross, S. C. (2013). “Performance characteristics of a compression-ignition
engine using direct injection ammonia-DME mixtures”. In: Fuel 103 (2013), pp. 1069–
1079. DOI: 10 . 1016/j.fuel.2012.08.026.
Co, W. S. (2018). Four methanol-powered tankers ordered at Hyundai Mipo for Waterfront
Shipping’, 5, pp. 1–5.
Comer, B. N. (2017). Black carbon emissions and fuel use in global shipping 2013-2015.
Washington DC: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).
Corbett, J. J. and Winebrake, J. J. (2018). Life Cycle Analysis of the Use of Methanol for
Marine Transportation’.
Counsil, E. (2023). Infographic - Fit for 55: increasing the uptake of greener fuels in the
aviation and maritime sectors. Retrieved from
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/fit-for-55-refueleu-and-fueleu/
Craig, B. (2020). The Future of Batteries in the Marine Sector: What Lies Beyond the
Horizon? Univ. of Southampton,.
DFDS. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.dfds.com/en/about/media/news/hydrogen-ferry-
for-oslo-copenhagen
Dieselnet. (2023). Retrieved from https://dieselnet.com/standards/eu/nonroad.php#vessel
DNV Veracity. (2022). , valid 09/.
DNV-GL . (2018). presentation by Stine Mundal and Dag Sandal.
E. S. Starkman, G. E. (1967). “Ammonia as a spark engine fuel: Theory and application”. In:
SAE Transactions 75 (1967), pp. 765–784. DOI: 10.4271/670946.
E. S. Starkman, G. E. (1968). “Ammonia as a diesel engine fuel: Theory and application”. In:
SAE Transactions 76 (1968), pp. 3193–3212. DOI: 10.4271/670946.
Ellis, J. et al. (2018). ‘Final Report – Summary of the SUMMETH Project Activities and
Results. Deliverable D6.2’.
EUROMOT. (2016). Black Carbon Measurement Protocol IMO Annexes, Seagoing Marine
BC data collection by EUROMOT member companies as referred to by IMO
document PPR 4/9 of 14 October 2016, paragraph 3.
Flex LNG Ltd. (2021). 2.stroke propulsion. Retrieved from https://www.flexlng.com/2-stroke-
propulsion/
Førby, N. (2023). et. al. “Ignition and combustion study of premixed ammonia using GDI pilot
injection in a CI engine”. In: Fuel 331 (2023), 9 p., 125768.
Fredrik R. Westlye, A. I. (2013). “Experimental investigation of nitrogen based emissions
from an ammonia fueled SI-engine”. In: Fuel 111.1 (2013), pp. 239–247. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.03.055.
Frost, J. (2021). et al. “An experimental and modelling study of dual fuel aqueous ammonia
and diesel combustion in a single cylinder compression ignition engine”. In:
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 46.71 (2021), pp. 35495–35510. DOI: 10 .
1016/j.
Gentili., S. F. (2013). “Analysis of the behaviour of a 4-stroke Si engine fuelled with ammonia
and hydrogen”. In: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 38.3 (2013), pp. 1607–
1615. DOI: 10. 1016/j.ijhydene.2012.10.114.
Georgina Jeerh, M. Z. (2021). Recent progress in ammonia fuel cells and their potential
applications. Journal of Materials Chemistry A (RSC Publishing) .
Gray, J. T. (1967). et al. “Ammonia fuel - Engine compatibility and combustion”. In: SAE
Transactions 75 (1967), pp. 785–807. DOI: 10.4271/660156.
Grönholm, T. (2021). Evaluation of Methane Emissions Originating from LNG Ships Based
on the Measurements at a Remote Marine Station
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03293.
Gysel, N. R. (2017). Detailed Analysis of Criteria and Particle Emissions from a Very Large
Crude Carrier Using a Novel ECA Fuel. Environ. Sci. Technol. , 51, 1868−1875.
Hannula, I. and Kurkela, E. (2013). Liquid transportation fuels bed gasification of
lignocellulosic biomass. VTT Technology 91.

Hannula, I. and Reiner, D. M. (2017). The race to solve the sustainable transport problem via
carbon-neutral synthetic fuels and battery electric vehicles Cambridge Working Paper
in Economics’, (EPRG Working Paper 1721; Cambridge Working Paper in Eco.
Haraldson, L. (2014). Use of methanol in internal combustion engines – a status review’.
Hedberg, R. (2007). The Scania Ethanol Story - 25 years of experience in sustainable
transport’, XVI International Symposium of Alcohol Fuels, 8 January 2007, 20, p. 20.
Hellenicshippingsnews. (n.d.). Ships that ‘scrub’ emissions earn twice as much as those that
don’t | Hellenic Shipping News Worldwide .
IACCSEA. (n.d.).
ICCT. (2020). The climate implications of using LNG as a marine fuel.
IMO. (2020). Fourth IMO GHG Study 2020 – Final report, MEPC 75/7/15,. International
Maritime Organization.
IMO. (2020, 3 2). IMO 2020 sulphur limit implementation - carriage ban enters into force.
Retrieved from https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/03-1-
March-carriage-ban-.aspx
IMO. (2020). Report of fuel oil consumption data submitted to the IMO Ship Fuel Oil
Consumption Database in GISIS (Reporting year: 2020). MEPC 77/6/1, 2021.
IMO. (n.d.). IMO’s work to cut GHG emissions from ships. Retrieved from
https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Cutting-GHG-emissions.aspx
Internatinal Gas Union. (2022). World LNG Report. IGU. Retrieved from
https://www.igu.org/resources/world-lng-report-2022/
Japan Engine Corporation. (2021). Agreement for Trial of Hydrogen-fueled Engine equipped
Onboard (right), retrieved from https://www.j-eng.co.jp/en/news (last accessed
November 18, 2021).
Johnson, K. M. (2016). Black carbon measurement methods and emission factors from
ships. Washington, D.C.: International Council on Clean Transportation. Retrieved
from https://theicct.org/publications/black-carbonmeasurement-methods-and-
emission-factors-ships
Johnson, K. M. (2018). Evaluation of a Modern Tier 2 Ocean Going Vessel Equipped with a
Scrubber. Final report to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), July 2018.
Johnson, K. P.-P. (2019). Evaluation of a Modern Tier 2 Ocean Going Vessel on Two Low
Sulfur Fuels. (University of California Riverside), , report prepared for California Air
Resources Board (CARB), March,.
Juliussen, L. R. (n.d.). [4] The MAN ME-GI engine: From initial system considerations to
implementation and performance optimisation, CIMAC paper, 2013.
K. Herrmann et al. (2023). Initial investigations into ammonia combustion at conditions
relevant for marine engines, paper accepted for publication at CIMAC 2023.
Karman, D. M. (2020). Marine Black Carbon and Particulate Matter Emission Factors: A
literature search . Emission Research and Measurement Section, Environment and
Climate Change Canada.
Kobayashi, H. (2018). et al. “Science and technology of ammonia combustion”. In:
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 37.1 (2019), pp. 109–133. DOI: 10 . 1016 / j
. proci.2018.09.029.
Kyung Hyun Ryu, G. Z.-C. (2013). “Effects of Fuel Compositions on Diesel Engine
Performance Using Ammonia-DME Mixtures”. In: SAE Technical Papers. Vol. 2. Apr.
2013. DOI: 10.4271/2013-01-1133.
Lampert, E. (2017). Methanol-fuelled tankers one year on. Tanker Shipping and Trade.’.
LEC - Large Engines Competence Center. (2023). EU Horizon2020 project “HyMethShip”.
Carbon Capture on board a ship.
Lhuillier, C. (2019). “Performance and Emissions of an Ammonia-Fueled SI Engine with
Hydrogen Enrichment ”. In: 14th International Conference on Engines & Vehicles
(Sept.
Lloyds register. (2015). Press release from : Stena Germanica: the world's first methanol-
powered ferry is delivered (lr.org).
Maersk. (2022). A.P. Moller - Maersk continues green transformation with six additional large
container vessels |.
Mercier, A. (2022). “Improvement of SI engine combustion with ammonia as fuel: Effect of
ammonia dissociation prior to combustion”. In: Fuel Communications 11.March
(2022). DOI: 10.1016/j.jfueco.
Mørch, C. S. (2010). et al. “Ammonia/hydrogen mixtures in an SI-engine: Engine
performance and analysis of a proposed fuel system”. In: Fuel 90.2 (2011), pp. 854–
864. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2010.09.042.
Mounaïm-Rousselle, C. (2021). et al. “Performance of ammonia fuel in a spark assisted
compression Ignition engine”. In: International Journal of Engine Research (2021),
pp. 1–12. DOI: 10 . 1177 / 14680874211038726.
NORLED. (n.d.). the-mf-hydra-first-in-the-world. Retrieved from
https://www.norled.no/en/news/the-appearance-of-the-hydrogen-ferry-begins-to-take-
shape/
Nylund. (2013). [5]I. Nylund I., M. Ott: Development of a dual fuel technology for slow-speed
engines, CIMAC paper, 2013.
Nylund, N.-O. et al. (2015). Testing of various fuel and additive options in a compression-
ignited heavy-duty alcohol engine’, The 21st International Symposium on Alcohol
Fuels – 21st ISAF, pp. 1–15. Available at: http://teknologiateollisuus.fi/sites.
Olmer, N. B. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping, 2013–2015.
Washington DC.: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).
Olmer, N. e. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping, 2013–2015 : detailed
methodology. Washington DC: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).
Pavlos Dimitriou, R. J. (2019). “A review of ammonia as a compression ignition engine fuel”.
In: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 45.11 (2020), pp. 7098– 7118. DOI: 10 .
1016 / j . ijhydene . 2019 . 12.209.
Peter Glarborg/Anker Degn. (n.d.). misc. papers.
Ryan Kennedy, J. H. (n.d.). An investigation of air pollution on the decks of 4 cruise ships. .
Bloomberg School of Public Health.
S. Wüthrich et al. (2022). Optical investigation and thermodynamic analysis of premixed
ammonia dual-fuel combustion initiated by dodecane pilot fuel, Fuel Communications
12 (2022) 100074, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfueco.2022.100074.

S. Wüthrich et al. (n.d.). Comparison of pilot fuel ignited premixed ammonia versus methane
dual-fuel combustion, paper presented at the 7th Large Engine Symposium: The
Future of Large Engines - Technology Concepts and Fuel Options – Pathways to
Clean Shippi.
Sandal., S. M. ( 2018-10-10). Scrubber retrofit 1 Meeting the Global Sulfur Cap 2020 limits. .
DNV GL webinar. DNV GL.
Schneiter, D. (2021). [7] et al: WinGD’s X-act initiative: A holistic approach towards
sustainable shipping, paper presented at 18th Symposium „Sustainable Mobility,
Transport and Power Generation“, 2021.
Schramm, J. (2016). Alcohol Applications in Compression Ignition Engines. A Report from
the IEA Advanced Motor Fuels, Annex 46.’.
Schröder, J., Müller-Langer, F., Aakko-Saksa, P. Winther, K. Baumgarten, W. and Lindgren,
M. . (2020). Methanol as Motor Fuel - Summary Report. AMF Task 56 report (Annex
III on marine methanol ).
SEA-LNG. (2022). [3] SEA-LNG: Bunker Navigator video available at
https://youtu.be/cPRlmGG9aKk, retrieved 20.10.2022 .
SEA-LNG Ltd. (2020). SEA-LNG. Retrieved from https://sea-lng.org/
Stocker, T. (2013). et al. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.
Stojcevski, T., Jay, D. and Vicenzi, L. (2016). Methanol Engine in a Ferry Installation’, 28th
CIMAC World Congress, (Paper 099), p. 13.
The Maritime Executive. (2022, June 6). Retrieved from maritime-executive.com:
https://maritime-executive.com/article/eastern-pacific-signs-mou-for-industry-s-first-
ammonia-fueled-vessel
Transport & Environment. (2016, June). Retrieved from
https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/07/2016_Consultant_report_shipping_NOx_abatement.pdf
Ushakov, S., Stenersen, D. & Einang, P.M. . (n.d.). Methane slip from gas fuelled ships: a
comprehensive summary based on measurement data.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-018-00622-z (2019).
Winnes, H., Moldanová, J., Anderson, M., & Fridell, E. (2016). On-board measurements of
particle emissions from marine engines using fuels with different sulphur content. .
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of
Engineering for the Maritime Environment, Volume 230 (1): 10 – Feb 1, .
Winther, K. (2022). Methanol as Fuel for Marine Engines, Danish Energy Agency, EUDP
64019-0036.
Zetterdahl M., J. M. (2016). Impact of the 0.1% fuel sulfur content limit in SECA on particle
and gaseous emissions from marine vessels. . Atmospheric Environment 145.

AMF_Task_60

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMF_Task_60

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMF_Task_60

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Task Number 60

A Report from the

German Weisser Michael Wang Päivi Aakko-Saksa

Youngmin Woo Helen Lindblom Igor Sauperl

Some main conclusions of this report are:

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 8

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 9

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 10

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 11

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 12

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 13

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 14

Engine designation Bore Stroke Cylinders Power MEP Speed

MAN B&W G95ME-C10.6 95 346 6 - 12 41 - 82 21 70 - 80

MAN B&W S30ME-B9.5 30 133 5-8 3-5 21 148 - 195

WinGD X-92B 92 347 6-12 24 - 77 21 70-80

WinGD X-35B 35 155 5-8 2.5 - 7 21 118-167

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 15

Fuel type Fueling principle Designation Combustion principle

LNG High pressure gas GI Diesel combustion process with

Methanol High pressure liquid LGIM Diesel combustion process with

LNG Low pressure gas GA Otto process with ignition by fuel

2-stroke Dual-fuel engines with low-pressure injection

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 16

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 18

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 19

Future 2-stroke multifuel engines

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 20

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 21

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 22

Figure 10 Forecast of marine fuel changes.

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 23

Figure 12 Pros and cons of advanced marine fuels

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 24

Figure 14 Development of the HIMSEN multifuel engine

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 25

Figure 16 Fuel injector test rig

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 26

Engine Bore Stroke Cylinders Power MEP Speed

MAN V51/60DF 51 60 12 - 16 12.6 – 16.8 20.6 500

MAN L21/31 21 31 6-9 1.3 – 1.9 24.0 1000

MAN 175D 17.5 21.5 12 - 20 1.5 – 4.4 18 - 25.5 1600 - 2000

Wärtsilä 46TS-DF 46 58 6 - 16 7.8 – 20.8 27 600

Wärtsilä 20 20 28 6-9 1.1 – 1.6 21 - 22 1000 - 1200

Wärtsilä 14 13.5 15.7 12 - 16 0.75 – 1.34 22 – 23 1500 - 1900

4-stroke Dual-fuel engines for LNG

Motorized Fishing Vessel

Figure 17 Length of fishing vessels in China

Motorized Fishing Vessel

fishing vessel vessel

Inland and Coastal Cargo Ships

The Progress of Advanced Marine Fuels page 29

Figure 19 number of water transport vessels in China from 2016 to 2020

Table 3 Composition of national water transport ships (by navigation area)

Increase over the

Inland waterway transport vessel

No. 10000 11.50 -3.8

Net Load 10000/t 13673.02 4.5

Passenger capacity 10000 60.07 -4.2

Container space 10000/TEU 51.31 31.0