TEchnologies and scenarios For Low Emissions Shipping

Project Information

TEFLES

Grant agreement ID: 266126

Closed project

Start date 1 February 2011

End date 31 January 2014

Funded under

• Specific Programme "Cooperation": Transport (including Aeronautics)

Total cost € 3 038 611,11

EU contribution € 2 259 405,00

Coordinated by

INOVALABS DIGITAL, SL
Spain

Final Report Summary - TEFLES (TEchnologies and scenarios For Low Emissions Shipping)

Executive Summary:
Technologies and Scenarios for Low Emission Shipping (TEFLES) is a Collaborative FP7-SST-2010-RTD-1 Project, under Grant Agreement Number 266126. The Project covered the period from February 2011 (M01) to January 2014 (M36). The Project total budget was 3.11 million EUR and total EU contribution 2.26 million EUR. Remark that the Project budget and term was kept in spite of abnormal circumstances faced by two of the Project Partners.

The consortium was integrated by INOVA (Spain), acting as project coordinator, VICUS DT (Spain) as technical coordinator, CIT (Spain), COUPLE (Germany), HSVA (Germany), BARRERAS (Spain), Istanbul Technical University-ITU (Turkey), Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo-APV (Spain), SAFT (France), HEATMASTER (Holland), Newcastle University-UNEW (United Kingdom) and MWB AG (Germany).

The Project focus is reducing emissions effectively in EU Motorways of the Seas. The ships targeted are ROROs, and a case ship RORO operating the Vigo-Nantes MoS has been used to monitor and validate the Project results.

The main Project objectives are: develop an innovative energy efficient Exhaust Gas Cleaning System (EGCS) composed of a Dry Scrubber and a compact Selective Catalytic Reactor (SCR); develop Scenario Models to determine ship fuel consumption and emissions At Sea, Manoeuvring and At Port; analyze and determine the potential of Emission Reduction Technologies (ERT´s) relative to After Treatment and Thermal, Hydrodynamic and Propulsion and Generation; select the ERT´s best placed to achieve significant emission reductions cost effectively in the MoS operations; and finally evaluate the potential impact of these ERT´s at EU RoRo Fleet level.

The Project main results are: an innovative EGCS system has been developed and validated reducing SOx, NOx and PM emissions very significantly (97% SOx, 90% NOx and PM), with an important extra heat recovery (46%) and a slight increase in fuel consumption. Three Scenario Models (At Sea, Manoeuvring and At Port) have been developed and validated with improved levels of uncertainty respect to standards, integrating several specific Modules - such as engine, ship resistance, ERT´s, optimization algorithms, etc. - but with Model Cores in Simulink, so ERTs and ERTs combinations and results could be obtained through integration of the three Scenarios in a Holistic Ship Model simulating the operational conditions of the RoRos in the EU MoS. ERT´s (20) have been analyzed and their impact on fuel consumption and emission reductions evaluated. Several ERT´s were selected and grouped to conform 5 ERT Packs following specified criteria. A probabilistic Monte Carlo Fleet Model was defined and validated with 15 ROROS and its results extrapolated to a database of 128 EU ROROs. Finally a Cost Efficiency Module–CEM based on marginal abatement cost methodology was defined to evaluate the cost efficiency of the abated emissions of the ERT Packs compared with the baseline RORO, capable of considering multiple variations in assumptions (such as fuel prices, new building vs. retrofit, interest rates, etc.) and conclusions referred to Packs utilization obtained.

The project has been disseminated by means of its Web Page regularly updated, frequently visited and where all the project public documents can be discharged, through numerous articles-conference presentations-scientific papers etc., in three dedicated workshops celebrated in singular international maritime events with numerous attendees from key stakeholders representatives and five seminars addressed to very specific interested audiences.

Project Context and Objectives:
PROJECT CONTEXT

Freight transport demand in EU in tonnes km has been increasing steadily the past years and is estimated this path will continue in the near future.

Shipping is recognized as the most cost efficient transport mode as well as the most efficient measured in terms of CO2 emissions per tonne-km.

The EC on its “White Paper on Transport: Towards a competitive and resource-efficient transport system” has set a goal in order to achieve the 60% GHG reduction target, to shift 30% of the road transport over 300km to more efficient modes such us rail and waterborne by 2030, and more than 50% by 2050 facilitated by efficient and green freight corridors. The development of Green SSS in the Trans European Transport Networks (TEN-T) is consequently one of the strategic priorities.

The CO2 emission limits for ships over 400GTs are regulated by IMO through the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) that applies for new buildings and the Energy Efficiency Operational Index) that applies to all ships.

In addition to CO2 further reductions in shipping driven by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) EEDI and EEOI indexes, SOx and NOx remains emissions where waterborne transport has complimentary room for improvement. IMO with MARPOL Annexe VI and the EC with Directive 2012/33/EU have set more strict regulations for these emissions.

While at port the EU has issued the directive 2005/33/EC, establishing from 1st January 2010, that ships berthed and/or anchored at EU ports are not allowed to consume fuels with sulphur content exceeding 0.1% by mass, regardless of ship type, GTs or flag.

In this context TEFLES project focuses precisely on how to reduce emissions effectively and cost efficiently in the EU SSS traffics. The Vigo-Nantes MoS (1,000 NM roundtrip approximately) has been selected as case study and as the test lab for validation purposes.

The ships involved in these traffics are RORO´s, and in the case study mentioned the main freight carried are cars and trailers with car parts and other goods such as slate, canned food, etc.


PROJECT OBJECTIVES

In order to lower the ship emissions in EU SSS TEFLES focuses on:

• The selection and modeling of the potentially most promising technologies in different stages of development, to reduce emissions from ships.

• The development of ship scenario models and the analysis of these technologies in these scenarios to allow owners and operators make decisions about their use and preparation based on their cost / benefits and potential quantified emissions reduction.

The detailed objectives of the project are listed below:
1. Development, assessment and validation of new exhaust gas after treatment systems, capable of optimize thermal energy by means of thermal recovery technologies
2. Assessment and validation of hydrodynamic technologies for improving the ship propulsion efficiency
3. Assessment and validation of alternative propulsion technologies, auxiliary drives and power generation technologies
4. Definition of an At Sea Model for validation, simulation and analysis of different technologies and operational measures for reducing emissions effectively in this scenario.
5. Definition of a Port Approach and Manoeuvring Model for validation, simulation and analysis of different technologies and measures for reducing emissions effectively in this scenario including the required port vessel interaction.
6. Definition of an At Port Model for validation, simulation and analysis of different technologies and options for reducing emissions effectively in this scenario.
7. Disseminate the results and conclusions on the Emission Reduction Technologies assessed and the Scenario Models developed

The methodology for a successful execution of this project is based on a structured combination of research and development activities in order to develop and analyze technologies effectiveness for emission reduction in ships, and activities in model scenario building, in order to analyze the impact of the technologies and technology combinations into real-life ship operations.


WORKPLAN AND BUDGET

The Project work plan has a clear result oriented focus, dividing the activities into natural work packages.

Three Work Packages are dedicated to assess the different Emission reduction Technologies –After Treatment and Thermal, Hydrodynamics and Propulsion, and Power Generation and Propulsion (inside hull)- . Other three to develop the three Scenario Models. A specific WP is dedicated to define the economic tool for evaluating the economic efficiency of the selected ERT´s combinations. Finally two additional WP´s are dedicated to Project Management and Dissemination.

The project started February 1st 2011 and finished January 31st 2014. The total Project Budget has been 3.11 million EUR and the EU Contribution 2.26 million EUR.


PROJECT CONSORTIUM

The Project Partner and its main tasks and responsibilities have been:

• INOVA, Project management, Cost efficiency analysis, and dissemination activities
• VICUS DT, Technical coordination, At Sea Scenario Model and ship propulsion and manoeuvring ERT´s
• CIT, Participation in several project activities and correlation between TEFLES results and main Ship Emission Reduction Indexes
• COUPLE SYSTEMS, Development of an innovative and most efficient Exhaust Gas Cleaning System with respect to lowest emissions and highest energy recovery
• HSVA, Manoeuvring Scenario Model and ship propulsion and manoeuvring ERT´s
• ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, At Sea Scenario Fleet Model and ship propulsion and manoeuvring ERT´s
• PUERTO DE VIGO (APV), At Port ERT´s and dissemination activities
• SAFT, Electrical generation, distribution and storage ERT´s
• HEATMASTER, Thermal generation and distribution ERT´s
• NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY, At Port Scenario Model, Power generation and propulsion ERT´s, and thermal storage ERT´s
• BARRERAS, State of the art and on board installation assessment
• MWB, Contribution to the techno-economic and cost efficiency analysis of ERTs

The Project third Parties and End Users and activities have been:

• PORT OF NANTES, information required to assess the ERT´s in the At Port Scenario
• SUARDIAZ and REMOLCANOSA, access to the RORO and Tug boats respectively and all the information and ship data required.
• SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, access to key information relative to the On-shore Power Supply (OPS) systems and technologies
• SHORTESA Promotion Center Spain, PORT DE BARCELONA, VALENCIA PORT, ACCIONA TRANSMEDITERRANEA


MOS AND CASE SHIPS

The MoS selected was Vigo-Nantes/St.Nazaire approximate leg distance of 500 NM, operated weekly by RoRos with cars and trailers.

The RoRo used for sea trials and validation purposes is an ICE CLASS 1AS Controllable Pitch Propeller (CPP) installation (most typical in western MoS fleet). Main particulars: Lpp=128 m, B=22.65 m, Design draft=7.07 m, Design speed=20.37 kn, Installed power=14480 kW at 500 rpm, CPP installation with shaft generator, 2x 750 kW at 1500 rpm aux. gensets.

The tug had two fixed pitch propellers with POD configuration and main Marine Diesel Oil (MDO) engine. Main particulars: Loa=25.36 m, B=10 m, Draft= 3.5 m, Main engines 2x1469 kW at 1600 rpm, 2 FPP KAMEWA Pods, D=2.2 m, 4 Blades. Mainly used for escort.


OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR CALCULATIONS

The operational weekly conditions measured in sea trials have been the following:
• 36 Hours (21.4 %) in port
• 6.4 Hours (3.8 %) in port approach
• 125.6 Hours (74.8 %) on sea (average speed 16 knots)

For annual calculation purposes the following assumptions have been considered:
• Week cycle repeated 48 times per year.
• Weather condition: Assumed same averaged weather conditions for the whole year.
• Roughness: No additional degradation of hull roughness in a year.
• No emissions from boilers considered At Port.
• HFO consumption per year: 9368 mt
• Emissions per year: NOx 722 t; SOx: 468 t; CO2: 29716 t; MP: 12 t.

Project Results:
SCENARIO MODELS

Three Ship Scenario Models (At Sea, Manoeuvring and At Port) and one MoS Fleet Model have been developed in the project.

AT SEA MODEL

In the At Sea Model the Operational profile is an input of the Ship resistance and Ship propulsion modules -that take into account the Weather data. All of them define the overall load for the Engine module from which Fuel consumption and Emissions are obtained as outputs. When the sailing condition is not steady, Ship dynamics module can be activated, so thrust and resistance are accounted for ship acceleration and deceleration.

The At Sea Model integrates several simulation tools using WAVE, CFD Viscous Code, etc. for specific Modules such as engine, ship resistance and ERT´s, but the Model Core has been developed –as in the other Scenario Models- in SIMULINK, for facilitating the integration and obtaining the global Fuel Consumption and Emissions resulting of the ship on its combined scenario operation profile.

The ship data inputs of the model are: Hull geometry, Propeller and rudder geometry, Other propulsive devices data (Tunnel Thrusters), Auxiliary plant data (gen-sets and consumers), Main engine and reduction gear data (efficiency, fuel consumption, etc.), Emissions data, Operational profile (drafts, trims, speeds, time at port, manoeuvring and at sea, fuel types, sailing areas).

In order to minimize uncertainty in the calculations, it is wise to make specific measurements on board so the parameters which are inputs for the model are properly identified and quantified.

The following data have been measured in sea trials between both MoS Ports: Shaft power (torque and rpm, Main engine Fuel consumption, Speed (GPS), Rudder angle (0-10V signal), Pitch (4-20mA signal), Loading condition, Auxiliary engines fuel consumption, Power demand at shaft generator, Main consumers electric demand, Emissions, Operational profile.

Remarkable emissions calculation methods performed in the model: NOx Calculation in WAVE, CO2 Calculation in WAVE, SOx Calculation with LRS1995 formula (Is simple, It allows calculating SOx for different sulphur contents easily, 20xS (%) [kg/T] [LRS1995], 4.2xS (%) [g/kWh] is equivalent to the above formula), PM. [Cooper 2002] 0.0059*Fractional load^(-1.5)+0.2551.

The At Sea Model outputs are: Fuel consumption for a given operational profile, Propulsive parameters, Emissions (CO2, NOx, SOx and PM).

An uncertainty analysis has been conducted. Sources of uncertainty in the model are: Input data (if sea trials are conducted it can be quantified properly), Fuel data (difficult to assess), Weather conditions (when extrapolating to a period, it increases uncertainty).

The sea trials conducted proved the higher accuracy of the At Sea Model respect to the state of the art models.


MANOEUVRING MODEL

The goal of the port approach model is to predict and reduce the emissions during the port approach. During port approach manoeuvring plays an important role. There are significant changes in the required power due to the change of the steering devices for manoeuvring. This includes significant changes of the propeller revolution and/or pitch, the rudder angles, and other steering devices like tunnel thrusters.

In order to predict and, in a later stage reduce the emissions, the combination of four tools is required.
• Manoeuvring simulator for port and harbour manoeuvres
• Steering tool for the manoeuvring simulator
• Engine Model
• Optimisation Tool

The manoeuvring simulator transforms the steering of the manoeuvring devices like rudder, propeller and thrusters together with the environmental conditions like currents, wind speed and water depth in the reaction of the ship, the resulting ship path.

The steering tool is required to transform the prescribed path into the steering commands of the manoeuvring devices. It can be thought of to simulate the job the captain would do in real live manoeuvring. It facilitates the optimisation since no steering by a human being is required that would be unfeasible for optimisation processes were thousands of manoeuvres are performed to find an optimum solution.

The engine model is the link from the required power for the manoeuvres to emissions. It simulates the behaviour of the main and auxiliary engines.

The optimisation tool is used to find an optimum or at least better solution for the manoeuvre. This can be done by varying the required path and the velocity profile during the manoeuvre. The optimisation tool combines all three other tools, runs them for a given combination of path and velocity profiles and get from the system the required emissions and time of the manoeuvre. Since the emissions and the required time are usually contradictory objectives a multi-objective optimisation is required.

As in the case of the At Sea Model, the Manoeuvring Model uses similar simulation tools for specific Modules, such as CFD Viscous Code and Blenderman catalogue, for specific ERTs as Aerodynamic resistance, but the Model Core, is as well in SIMULINK.


AT PORT MODEL

The At Port Model considers all potential topologies of the multiple berths At Port Network, including Centralised, Distributed, Direct Current Distributed, and Hybrid with OGPS (Off-Grid-Power-Supply) LNG based.

The Networks described previously were modelled in Simulink in keeping with the commonality with the rest of the project. Each topology was developed as a parameterised model such that the component values can be tuned programmatically. This facilitates the implementation of the optimisation algorithm in the successive task.

The inputs to the models are the load profiles from the individual berths which determine the power flows through the shoreside network. The expectation is that the vessels’ power is met without negatively affecting the power quality to the rest of the network. This constraint determines the electrical limits in accordance with ISO High Voltage Shore Connection Systems standard which must be met for satisfactory and interoperable operation according to the standardised requirements for cold ironing.

The fixed voltage input is that determined by the utility incomer at the port from the distribution network. This is considered fixed and serves as the reference bus from which the port distribution network’s voltages are determined, providing the starting point for a power flow study. By having a fixed voltage input at the upstream node and a known power demand at the downstream ends of the network, the intermediate voltage and current quantities can be determined by successive iterations of the model until a steady-state solution is reached. This permits the simulation to be run only when changes in any of the inputs are detected, after which the values are held until the next detected change, speeding up simulation.

The network model is housed within a do-while iteration loop. For the first iterate, the simulation is run until all the (internal) currents and voltages converge to a steady-state value, indicating that the simulation has reached a suitable solution. The output is then held until a change is detected, which avoids having to continuously run the simulation even when there are no changes to any of the variables involved. A Particle Sworm Optimisation (PSO) algorithm has been considered due to generally superior speed of convergence towards optimal solutions.

Power and efficiencies are the major concern in order to determine the optimal power networks for reducing shoreside emissions. Thus rather than detailed dynamic modelling, efficiency maps, and first-order losses are the prime consideration.


MOS FLEET MODEL

Motorways of the sea Model aims to estimate the total emission in a fleet operation. MoS simulation environment based on probailistic approach using Monte-Carlo simulations applied into a ship population to represent MoS fleet.

A large number of ships operate in a Motorway of the Sea (MoS), mainly RoRos and Ferries are accounted for the MoS operations. TEFLES MoS emission model is based on prediction of a number of parameters affecting the emissions at the MoS. The main parameters are: Route of the MoS (Route length, weather conditions, Ports etc), Number and characteristics of ships in MoS (size of ships, ship dimensions, engine characteristics etc), Operational parameters of MoS ships (Cargo loads, ship ages, dry docking periods etc), Fuel type utilised in MoS, Emission Reduction Measures (ERMs) applied in MoS.

The MoS conditions and fleet population have been described as statistical distributions of distance, weather conditions, and fleet characteristics, emissions are calculated for each ship individually by using simplified methods, then the total emissions are evaluated.

TEFLES MoS model simulates each of these parameters by considering the population of ships being operated. It is established by an Excel file consisting of a number of sheets (modules) interlinked to each other by parameters referencing. Each worksheet is a module with specific calculation aim.

The simulation model starts with inputs on which MoS is in investigation. Route characteristics and weather conditions are defined according to the MoS in investigation (MoS Module).

A fleet based on DW is created. All ship dimensions are obtained from ship type (only RoRo or Ferry) and DW of the ship. The module (Ship Module) is developed from data available from RoRo and Ferry fleet database both on global scale but also in database collected at the western MoS. Three types of simulation have been developed: Simulation of a specific ship in a specific route, Simulation of a specific ship in a MoS, Simulation of a ship fleet in a MoS.

The first option is created to simulate a specific ship operating in a specific route to validate the simulation models on a case based scenario.

Second option is utilised to assess the performance of a specific ship in real conditions. Emission reduction technologies can be evaluated in real operating conditions for the specific ship.

Last option is used to find the overall effect of emission reduction technologies for a fleet which may not be assessed for a single ship as the effects of an emission reduction technology may be different for different ship in the fleet.

Simulation model has different calculation modules built in according to input. The ship module generates the ship characteristics either from a specific ship, or from fleet probabilistic distribution by choosing a random ship but complying with the fleet characteristics. MoS module generates the weather conditions and voyage conditions according to MoS chosen from probabilistic environmental limiting conditions. Resistance module calculates the resistance from these inputs, and propulsion module chooses optimum propeller from Wageningen B series for the calm water design conditions, then calculates propulsion efficiency or the actual conditions. Emission module calculates the emissions for the engine loading and emission factors for the fuel expenditure.

A number of emission reduction technologies have been determined in TEFLES. These technologies effect either directly the fuel consumption or emissions by burning fuel. In the MoS simulation model, effect of each technology has been included in the simulation model depending their effect. The effects were divided into a number of categories:
• Frictional resistance reduction technologies (Patterned surfaces, new type of paints, dry docking)
• Roughness resistance reduction technologies (Hull cleaning, etc)
• Wave resistance reduction technologies (Bulbous bow, stern wedge, etc)
• Air drag reduction technologies (superstructure optimisation, etc)
• Total resistance/effective power reduction technologies (speed reduction, man improvement, weight reduction, etc)
• Engine power reduction technologies (wake adapted rudder, etc)
• Propulsion improvement technologies (combinator mode, etc)
• Specific fuel consumption reduction technologies (engine injection tuning, etc)
• Auxiliary power improvement technologies (batteries, etc)
• Emission reducing technologies (Scrubber, LNG, etc)

Each category can be taken into account either as % reduction on application variable or absolute value reduction on application variable. Each emission reduction technology can be made effective at sea, at maneuvering, at port or in any combination of these operating modes. Some of the emission reduction technologies can be directly included in the calculation such as paint roughness, dry docking, etc). Three different effects can be input, as some of the emission reduction technologies may have secondary reduction or even increase on some others, such as scrubber may increase the engine power due to backpressure. Increase in any variable can be input as negative values. Propulsion efficiency increase should be entered as negative number.

A Western Europe MoS was used in the current analysis which consists of 128 RoRo-cargo carrier/Car carrier. Fleet characteristics such as ship size, propulsion system etc was chosen using the database collected by Vigo port during TEFLES.


EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES-ERTs

Three categories of ERTs have been analised: AFTER TREATMENT AND THERMAL, PROPULSION AND GENERATION, HYDRODINAMICS AND PROPULSION.

AFTER TREAMENT AND THERMAL (ATT-ERTs)

The following ATT ERTs have been analised, specific relevant aspects described and its results relative to emissions defined.

DRY SCRUBBING+ SCR COMPACT SYSTEM
An innovative EGCS integrating a Dry Scrubber + compact SCR has been fully developed, tested and validated through CFD simulations and test bed trials.
Methodology: CS design + CFD analysis + SIMULINK MODEL
Results: Emissions reduction: NOx (90%), SOx (97%), PM (90%). Fuel consumption increases below 1%.
Running a dry scrubber downstream main engine allows removing SOx without reducing exhaust temperatures significantly. Due to the high exhaust gas outlet temperatures, the NOx can be removed after the dry SOx scrubber. With cleaned Exhaust gases, NOx removal in the SCR can be done without clogging/fouling of the reactor.
When operating in normal conditions, back pressure is below prescribed manufacturer’s recommendations.
Pilot units: two engines tested
1. One with MGO and Sulphur dosing in exhaust gases for Compact SCR testing
2. 2nd one (1:5 size) with Sulphur content in fuel
Conclusions: only with SOX cleaned exhaust gases, the SCR behaviour is acceptable; otherwise clogging reduces effectiveness dramatically.

HEAT RECOVERY
Results:
This is not a technology by itself but a consequence of using after treatment. According to the system already described, exhaust gases are SOx free downwards EGCS. This means temperature after heat recovery in the economizer can go below 185 ºC, which is sulphur oxides dew point in these conditions. The study conducted with the innovative EGCS resulted in lower exhaust temperatures for the economizer outlet, between 120-110º C. Being the temperature delta higher, heat recovery from exhaust gases can be increased (40% in the case ship). If an after treatment is installed the size of the economizer must be checked and if needed, oversized to take advantage of this effect.
Heat recovery in RoRos and Ropax is used for tanks heating system and air conditioning. In the RoRo case, the air conditioning demand is low, so the extra heat recovered has no potential use on board, and thus no positive effect on fuel consumption and emissions reduction can be expected. In the case of Ropax air conditioning demand is much higher, thus the extra heat could be used for this purpose.

TUNNEL THRUSTERS (CHANGING CPP TO VARIABLE RPM CPP)
Methodology: SIMULINK MODEL
Results: not appreciated savings
Time, for which tunnel thrusters were used, was so reduced that made not possible to identify any change in fuel consumption and emissions.
ENGINE INJECTION TUNING
Methodology: WAVE+SIMULINK MODEL
Results: 1% reduction in case ship.
According to the most important output of the engine model, which is iso-consumption curves diagram, it can be observed that when reducing rpms for same power delivered (moving leftwards horizontally) fuel consumption is reduced when close to design point condition.
Main Engines are normally bought for the design condition of the ship. This is usually a high demanding power condition so when the vessel is under operation, due to slow steaming, the engine demand in terms of power is reduced. This means that injection is out of the optimal point, which is maximum continuous ratio MCR. Tuning injection for the real engine load during its life can lead to certain Break Specific Fuel Consumption BSFC reduction (1-2%)

SPEED REDUCTION (1KN)
Methodology: SIMULINK MODEL
Results: Up to 5% in Fuel consumption and emissions
Speed reduction, known as slow steaming leads to fuel consumption and emissions savings. It increases legs time, but if schedule allows it, it is a very effective measure. The effectiveness of reducing speed comes from the fact that power is related to ship speed in the following way P=kv^3, being k a constant dependant on each ship.

COMBINATOR MODE
Methodology: CFD+SIMULINK MODEL
Results: Savings up to 8% in At Sea condition
The so called Combinator mode is the possibility of using controllable rpms in a CPP installation. The advantage of using Combinator mode is that advance ratio (J) can be modified for a certain condition. In the mid-range speeds, CPPs are not in their best efficiency points. Reducing rpms and increasing pitch leads to better propeller efficiency and thus reduced power demand from the propeller to Main Engine. Nowadays due to slow steaming implementation in most of the Fleets, Combinator mode is considered as a cheap technology that saves fuel and produces emission reduction.
Effects in engine: BSFC is reduced but high efficiency increase comes from propeller efficiency improvement, CO2 emissions are reduced, NOx are slightly increased (negligible), Recoverable heat is reduced.

REFRIGERATION SYSTEM
Methodology: System design + CFD + SIMULINK MODEL
Results: 0.8% emissions reduction at port
This technology represents the change of electrically driven chillers to absorption chillers. This refrigeration system can be used both at sea and at port. The absorption refrigeration device is oversized in the conceptual design, as it needs to fulfil the cooling demand during the sea trips and store extra cooling into the storage system for the port stays. At sea the absorption system is driven by the heat extracted from the economizer. A very different strategy will be applied during port stays, as the absorption refrigeration is to be switched off due to the lack of waste heat resource from ship’s engine exhaust. During port stay periods, the on-board cooling system is then solely to rely on the cooling energy released from the ice slurry storage. The overall new concept is a highly costumed refrigeration system. The size ratio between absorption system and ice storage is delicately designed depending on the length of time while the ship is on sea trips or in port.

SEA WATER PUMPS AND VENTILATION
Methodology: SIMULINK MODEL
Results: up to 0.4% in Fuel consumption and emissions at sea.
Frequency converters to drive main consumers not at full speed are an interesting technology with a reasonable cost. It is true that savings are below 1% in the overall, but it is also true that cost is reduced. Slow steaming, makes main engine/s to run at lower load, this means lower heat dissipation. Having frequency converters in SW, FW pumps and engine room fans reduces heat removal and adjusts it to actual demand. This means less electricity consumption and reduced fuel consumption and emissions due auxiliary plant demand.


PROPULSION AND GENERATION (PPG-ERTs)

The following PPG ERTs have been analised, specific relevant aspects described and its results relative to emissions defined.

RORO HYBRIDISATION
Alternatives
• Batteries supplying energy for:
- Aux. consumers
- Propulsion
• Aux. gensets for propulsion
Conventional shaft alternators link mechanical propulsion system with on-board electrical network. Main Engine runs on cheaper HFO, and by increasing loading on it, cheapest electricity generation can be obtained. With CPP configuration the network can have alternator supplying across a wide operating range. Reversing power flow to have electric propulsive capability is a possibility. The system is highly efficient with main engine high loads. At this point it must be highlighted that for bidirectionality and variable speed the system requires a frequency converter (AFE). This is something required when using the PMSM as generator instead of motor. In this way rpm (variable) of prime mover (in this case, Main Engine) are not affecting generation frequency.
Two basic configurations (topologies) identified:
Direct drive; low speed machine directly mounted on propeller shaft, suited for slow speed installations where ME directly drives propeller, bulkier machine and more expensive, but no additional gearbox losses.
Geared drive with MRG: for MSD/HSD MRG is necessary hence only PTO is needed. Best solution in terms of space and cost. Higher rpm means less torque for same power amount and PMSM size is highly dependent on torque (the higher the torque the bigger the size).
Setups examined: Direct drive PMSM, Low speed on MRG PMSM, High speed AFM on PTO.
• Power supply with batteries (alternative 1)
Methodology: Analyse power demand, Size new equipment with specific tool, SIMULINK MODEL
Results: From 0% up to 100% savings depending on manoeuvring time
The use of batteries in order to supply electricity for electric propulsion in CPP installations is possible only if Combinator mode -that reduces energy demands- is used. For FPP it is also a promising solution for emissions reduction. It all depends on the operating profile. Battery sizing is 100% profile dependant. The final user and shipyard must analyse power/fuel consumption before to integrate any battery system.
Distribution network with batteries
With single source, prime movers are sized for peak power requirements
-Hence significantly underutilised for low speed propulsion
-Hybridisation addresses this disparity by exploiting the strengths of different sources
An alternative system is to provide propulsion at reduced speeds.
-Prime movers sized for peak power requirement
- Hybrid powertrain addresses disparity between peak and low demands
-Auxiliary drive permits hybridisation of driveline
• Batteries analyzed: They were analyzed not only for propulsion but for supplying energy for different consumers in different scenarios. A broad number of combinations were analyzed. Some of them were redundant, senseless or too much power demanding. At the end, 30 possible cases came out, which were finally assessed.
• Auxiliary gensets for propulsion (alternative 2)
Methodology: Analyse power demand, Size new equipment with specific tool, SIMULINK MODEL
Results: From 0% up to 100% emissions reduction depending on time in manoeuvring (95% SOx, 43% NOx, 46% CO2)
Reducing rpms, changes advance ratio what makes the propeller work in a higher efficiency point. Dramatic changes in power are obtained. Hence if using gensets as primary energy source savings are produced compared to original case due to power reduction, not only to better BSFC.
Most efficient operation is produced with batteries charged at port. When charging at sea (only), there is penalty in overall Fuel consumption. Higher SOx savings are obtained due to the non existence of sulphur content in fuel used (MGO).

COLD IRONING
Methodology: Different topologies studied in port side, SIMULINK MODEL with optimisation algorithm
Results: Variable depending on the country generation mix
This technology represents the electricity supply from shore to ships while at port. There are some drawbacks such as the installation costs or ease of implementation. But in general terms, in European ports, shore based generation mix emissions are less than ship emissions (CO2/NOx/SOx). Installation on board requires modifications in the ship´s main switchboard. In the specific cases of ROROs, due to load demand at port, it makes it technically possible to supply that load by the port network. Generic connection requirements are defined by ISO/IEC/IEEE 80005-1.
Different port network configurations have been considered included shore side LNG generation option.
Considering only a cold ironing option at first, the PSO search highlighted the significant influence of the location of berthing and the generating mix, which greatly influences the actual resultant emissions generated by the shore connection of ships. For most locations, emission reductions are realised in terms of CO2 and NOx, while the SO2 emission reduction when compared to low Sulphur fuels is less clear. For locations where coal-generation dominates, the resultant emissions associated with cold ironing actually increase (although NOx emissions are reduced). Despite this, it must be emphasised that local harbour emissions are minimised.
With the PSO including also the shoreside LNG generation option, the set of optimal results is greatly increased with the possibility of including in-harbour generation. The Pareto sets of LNG/cold ironing combinations is greatly dependent on the relative cost of the components, and the search was repeated for various values of LNG cost to identify the different topologies dependent on the relative cost.

LNG FUEL SWITCH
Although LNG was out of the original scope of the project, it was finally incorporated in the analysis with the Scenario models as LNG driven Main Engine/s has been placed by different administration bodies and maritime stakeholders at the forefront of emission reduction and efficiency measures.
Results: Emissions reduction is dramatic achieving 25% reduction in CO2, 90% in NOx and almost 100% in SOx and PM.
Drawbacks: Obviously this technology is mainly recommended for new buildings due to costs of retrofitting.


HYDRODYNAMICS AND PROPULSION (HYD-ERTs)

BULBOUS BOW
Methodology: CFD+SIMULINK MODEL
Results: Fuel consumption and emissions savings up to 1% in the whole cycle
Bulbous bow is a protuberance in the fore part of the ship that helps reducing wave making resistance of the ship due to its effect on wave pattern. For ROROs, where Froude number at operation is above 0.25 is suggested to redesign the bulbous bow for the real operation. Savings will depend on the wellness of the design.

TRIM OPTIMISATION
Methodology: CFD+SIMULINK MODEL
Results: Fuel consumption and emissions savings dependant on trim condition. RoRos sailing in even keel
Trim optimization can be understood as an operational measure. The effect of trimming by bow or by the aft modifies substantially ship resistance, both friction (a small effect) and wave making (high effect). Knowing, by means of CFD, which is the best trim condition for a given load condition at a single speed, the ship can be operated more efficiently

STERN WEDGES
Methodology: CFD+SIMULINK MODEL
Results: Fuel consumption and emissions savings 1 % in the whole cycle
Stern wedges are useful to reduce the stern wave by effecting the trim angle as well as the changing the water flow under the transom. It is more effective in the higher speeds.

WAKE ADAPTED RUDDER
Methodology: CAD design+CFD+SIMULINK MODEL
Results:
-4.6% saving in FC and Emissions at sea condition with 0º
-Manoeuvring analysis showed no differences
CFD calculation included in the propulsion design methodology can help in designing the most efficient propeller for a given ship. Adapting the rudder-propeller to the ship wake and adding some devices such as bulb (reducing hub losses), or twist in the rudder blade (that helps recovering rotational propeller losses) leads to savings in fuel consumption and thus emissions.

ACS (AIR CAVITY SYSTEM)
Methodology: CFD+SIMULINK MODEL
Results: Fuel consumption and emissions savings 4.5% in a ship cycle
Air lubrication can be utilized in one of three forms: A sudden discontinuity such as a step creates a low pressure circulating field behind the discontinuity. Air can be fed into recirculation field to establish an air chamber which in turn reduces the frictional area, hence the frictional resistance. Secondly air bubbles can be fed into the hull surface. The bubbles dampen the turbulence intensity if they are kept within the boundary layer, resulting in a reduction of the frictional resistance coefficient. If air is fed sufficiently the bubbles collate and form an air film which be very influential to reduce the drag. Reduction on the power should also take the increase due to fans employed.

SURFACE PATTERNS
Methodology: CFD+SIMULINK MODEL
Results: Fuel consumption and emissions savings 3.9% in a ship cycle
The surface texture is critical for the skin friction resistance. In case of special textures emulating shark skin, or dolphin skin, reductions of the frictional resistance can be achieved. This feature is highly connected to the formation of crosswise and stream wise vortices which are responsible from the turbulence intensity fluctuations.

PAINTS/ DRY-DOCKING
Methodology: RESISTANCE CALCULATION+SIMULINK MODEL
Results: Fuel consumption and emissions savings 7% in ship cycle
Ship resistance is divided into two main components, Friction and wave making. Paints are a technology that directly affects roughness and thus friction. Having a clean hull or a state of the art coating reduces propulsion power requirement. Same as Paints, a proper and periodical hull and propeller cleaning reduces propulsion power requirements.

AERODYNAMIC RESISTANCE REDUCTION MEASURES
Methodology: CFD+SIMULINK MODEL
Results: Fuel consumption and emissions savings up to 1.5% in the whole cycle with variant B
ROROs have relatively large superstructure causing high air drag. Superstructure can be optimized around the bridge, at the corners of the cube superstructure shape. Separation near the stern can be avoided with some streamlining. Although the potential for the power saving shall depend on the original design of the hull, 1-1.5% reductions can be achieved in power.


ERT PACKS

How technologies are selected and combined
• It is necessary to fix criteria to evaluate each technology.
• It is necessary to determine a philosophy of packs. What makes interesting to put them together?
• There are several possible combinations that have not been considered.

Selection criteria (rated from 1 to 5)
• Maturity of technology. Validated technologies which are ready for installation.
• Effect of technology on emissions reduction.
• Suitability for new buildings or retrofit.
• Ease of simulation with TEFLES models.

The Packs defined in order to perform the cost-efficiency analysis include the following selected Emission Reduction Technologies:

PACK 1. OPERATIONAL MEASURES
• Speed reduction
• Engine injection tuning
• Trim optimisation
• Combinator mode

PACK 2. HYDRODYNAMIC IMPROVEMENTS
• Wake adapted rudder
• Bulbous bow
• Paints

PACK 3. HIGH IMPACT AND HIGH COST
• After treatment
• Cold ironing
Pack 3 contains technologies of intermediate impact and investments costs. The two measures in this pack can be combined with further emission reductions measures. However, these additional measures have a different cost structure. Therefore, the addition of further measures (refrigerator mode, combinatory mode, batteries for hybrid propulsion and generation) is represented in a new pack.

PACK 4. HIGHER INVEST/HIGHER IMPACT
• Combinator mode
• Batteries for Hybrid
• Cold ironing
• After treatment
• Refrigeration system

Packs 1 and 4 contain the Combinator Mode, a technology to adjust propeller positions to optimize thrust. Obviously this technology is only available for the controllable pitch propeller RORO.

PACK 5: LNG MAIN AND AUXILIARY ENGINE.
This pack involves a complete fuel switch to LNG. This entails a slightly different propulsion system enabling the vessel to run on LNG fuel. This option has been introduced to provide a means of comparison of the technologies of pack 1-4 with the LNG technology. An LNG fuel switch is capable of reducing emissions significantly. Hence, the European Union is very interested in this technology. However, a switch to LNG fuels is usually not possible in Europe today due to lacking LNG infrastructure and networks. Hence, the comparability of packs 1-4 with pack 5 is limited. When comparing pack 5 to packs 1-4 the results should be interpreted under the assumption that an efficient LNG network and infrastructure is in place in Europe and the investments of providing such structures are already made.


COST EFFICIENCY MODULE (TEFLES - CEM)

The Ship Holistic Simulator based on the TEFLES Scenario Models takes into account the operational assumptions and calculates Fuel Consumption and Emissions for the Ship in the Base Line case and with the different ERT Packs selected.

The Economic Module in connection with the Ship Holistic Simulator defines Cost Efficiency of the different alternatives considering the Investments and Operational Costs associated with the ERT Packs, plus other general data such as Interest rate and Fuel price. The calculus performed by the Economic Module is based on Marginal Abatement Cost Curves.

TEFLES – CEM: SPECIFIC AND GENERAL DATA

The fuel consumption and emissions data are obtained from the Holistic Simulator.
The CAPEX and OPEX of the different ERT Packs are provided by expert estimation of the partners involved in TEFLES. Engineers from the shipping industry have accurate knowledge on the cost of installing, maintaining and operating the individual abatement options.
The Fuel prices (HFO, MGO and LNG) come from BUNKERWORLD. The LSHFO is estimated at a similar price as MGO. Electricity price, 0,0998 €/KWh. Future Fuel and electricity prices is an own estimate based in an annual increase of 2%, resulting in a total 48% increase in 20 years (compound calculus). Discount Rate considered is 2013 EURIBOR + 2%, 2.5392%.

TEFLES – CEM: METHODOLOGY

In order to calculate precise emission reductions and costs, the two options (the baseline and the new option with ERTs) are compared directly. Hence, the emission reduction (or abatement) potential is the difference between the baseline for each ship type and the new technology in question.

Contrary to almost all other research who focus on one type of emissions only (mostly CO2), this study is capable of representing emissions (and emission reductions) of four types (NOx, SOx, CO2, and MP). In the general evaluation of the cost-efficiency of each emission reduction technology pack, we sum up the four emission amounts into a total amount which is a weighted average. This weighted average is composed using data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) about tax rates of European countries for different greenhouse gases. The higher the emission of a certain gas is taxed on average in Europe, the higher the potential harm of the gas for the environment. In this way we construct an emission index (TEE, Tonnes of Equivalent Emissions) for all four emission types together. The weighted average is then the sum of each of the emission quantity multiplied by the emission multiplier for each of the four gases.

On the cost side the OPEX consist of labor costs to operate the machinery, costs related to spare parts and maintenance, and fuel costs. The CAPEXs, being a sort of upfront investment, are annualized by use of the expected life cycle (years of utility) and the discount rate (based on EURIBOR plus 2% in the main scenario).

The costs of achieving these emission reductions are calculated taking the difference between the cost of operating the baseline and those operating costs of the baseline plus the abatement technology in question. In other words, the costs are the additional operating costs of installing a new emission reduction technology (or a set of technologies).

In evaluating the cost efficiency of the different abatement options, we compare the emission levels and costs of the baseline technology with those values for the situation of additionally installed abatement technologies.

So the main parameter to evaluate Cost-Efficiency is EUR per Abated Unit of Emissions, or, Delta EUR per Delta Abated TEE.
The Economic Module is capable of calculating results under various assumptions: CPP/FPP, New Buid/Retrofit, Current fuel-electricity prices/Future prices, Low/High Discount Rate, TEE/SOx only. All these assumptions result in 32 possible variations, so a Step-Wise-Process-Approach is followed for presenting the results obtained.

TEFLES – CEM: RESULTS FOR CPP RORO

ERT packs 1 and 2 provide only small emission reduction potentials, but their cost-effectiveness is excellent. These ERT packs reduce emissions and reduce annual cost. Installing these ERTs saves the ship operator money in all cases (variations of fuel prices, discount rates, retrofit or new build). The payback period of investments is between 2 and 5 years for packs 1 and 2 (depending on the assumptions on prices, discount rate, etc). However, packs 1 and 2 do not reduce emissions significantly (about 10% each). If more emission reductions are required, other ERTs must be employed. This is the case for packs 3 and 4.

Packs 3 and 4 include the after treatment technology (which is responsible for massive emission reductions of over 90%). When comparing Packs 3 and 4, it becomes clear that accompanying cold ironing and after treatment technologies (pack 3) with additional measures, the cost efficiency of the whole package increase. Pack 4 adds the combinatory mode, refrigeration system, and batteries for hybrid propulsion, improving the cost-efficiency of the Pack and providing further emission reductions. For large volumes of emission reductions, pack 4 would be necessary. Pack 4 does not reduce emissions at negative cost (at a gain). Instead, the ERTs increase annual cost of the vessel. This is not too unusual, however. Large emission reductions often require net investments.

Hypothetically, the LNG fuel switch (Pack 5) would outperform Pack 4. It provides similar emission reduction at lower cost. Note, however, that Pack 5 cannot be compared directly with Packs 1 to 4, because the LNG technology would require access to LNG supply. Such infrastructure is currently not available.

TEFLES – CEM: RESULTS FOR CPP RORO IN SECA ZONE
The SOx emission reductions achieved by the different packs also suggest that neither pack 1 nor pack 2 offer sufficient emission reductions potential to fit a RORO vessel for operations in the European SECA zones. We also know that pack 4 offers more emission reductions than pack 3 and at a better cost-efficiency. Therefore, we compare the cost-effectiveness of three options to prepare the baseline VPP RORO vessel for operations in SECA zones:
• Pack 4 (After treatment, cold ironing, Combinator mode, Batteries for hybrid propulsion, Refrigeration system)
• Pack 5 (LNG fuel switch)
• LSHFO (fuel switch to low-sulphur HFO with only 0.1% sulphur)

The cost-effectiveness between these three options is quite different. The LNG option is by far the most attractive option to equip a ship for navigation in SECA zones. However, we mentioned before that LNG is not available reliably in Europe. Hence, the option to install pack 4 as the second-best option is possibly the preferable solution for ship owners at this moment, since it is far superior in cost-effectiveness than the use of LSHFO fuel.

TEFLES – CEM: FINAL CONCLUSIONS

• The results clearly indicate that a set of operational measures grouped in Pack 1, as well as hydrodynamic improvements, grouped in Pack 2, are capable of reducing emissions of RORO ships in European waters by roughly 10 to 15% each. These emission reductions are achieved by cutting fuel consumption, leading to sizeable cost reductions at the same time.

• Other ERT Packs are capable of providing even bigger emission reductions. The high impact and high cost ERT group Pack 3 including after treatment and cold Ironing, yield emission reductions of approximately 90%.
If on top of Pack 3 the combinatory mode, hybridization, and refrigeration systems are installed, as reflected by Pack 4, emission reductions are even higher.
Packs 3 and 4 both reduce fuel consumption to a small extent, but the relatively high upfront investments and operating cost of the ERTs in Packs 3 and 4 results in total yearly operating cost increases.

• Interestingly, Pack 4 would prepare RORO ships for operations in the planned European Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs).
The analysis also shows that preparing ships for operations in SECAs with ERT Pack 4 is significantly cheaper than the alternative of using heavy fuel oil with low sulfur content.

• The analysis clearly shows the high potential of LNG fuels to reduce emissions, especially so with respect to sulphur emissions and access to SECAs. A RORO vessel with LNG propulsion complies with SECA limits, and the cost-efficiency of this technology is superior to virtually all remaining technologies.
Therefore, once the necessary investments to set up an operative LNG network in Europe are made, the LNG fuel switch would be the most cost-efficient option to reduce emissions in shipping.
Nevertheless, even in absence of such an LNG infrastructure, the other emission reduction technologies analyzed in the TEFLES project are also capable of providing large emission reductions at reasonable (or even negative) costs.

Potential Impact:
POTENTIAL IMPACT AT SHIP LEVEL

TEFLES is addressed at reducing emissions in MoS traffics, and the evaluation performed with the Models and Emission Reduction Technologies selected show that:

The CPP case RoRo, Lpp=128 ms. operating the Vigo-Nantes MoS base line emissions are in tonnes per year, SOx 468, NOx 722, CO2 29.716 PM 12 and aggregate 2.295 TEE.

• Interestingly, Pack 4 would prepare RORO ships for operations in the planned European Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs).
With ERT Pack 1 including Operational Measures (1Kn Speed Reduction, Engine Injection Tunning, Trim Optimisation and Combinator Mode) same New Build/Retrofitted Ship would be able to reduce in tonnes per year, SOx -45, NOx -76, CO2 -2.826 PM -1; Aggregate -229 TEE. Reducing HFO consumption in 909 tonnes per year and with an estimated incremental upfront CAPEX of 650,000 EUR (New Build) and 1.51 million EUR (Retrofit). From the economic in both cases the annual result would have a positive impact.

• Interestingly, Pack 4 would prepare RORO ships for operations in the planned European Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs).
If selecting Pack 4 loaded with the best performing ERTs (After Treatment, Hybrisation, Combinator Mode, Cold Ironing and Refrigeration System), same New Build/Retrofitted Ship would reduce in tonnes per year, SOx 456, NOx 659, CO2 3.651 PM -11; Aggregate -1.857 TEE. It would reduce HFO consumption in 1.030 mt per year and MGO in 182 mt. per year. It would consume 691,000 kWh of electricity while at port. The ship would be fully prepared for SECA Zone navigation according to IMO 2015 sulphur restrictions. The upfront incremental CAPEX would be 5.5 million EUR (New Build) and 6.5 million EUR (Retrofit). The annual result would be a total cost increase of 412,000 EUR.

• Interestingly, Pack 4 would prepare RORO ships for operations in the planned European Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs).
In between there is Pack 3 with After Treatment and Cold Ironing offering similar SOx, NOx and PM emission reductions, although not so much in CO2, and requiring a lower upfront CAPEX of 2.85 million EUR (New Build) and 3.9 million EUR (Retrofit). This alternative would mean a slightly higher HFO consumption of 56 mt. and 691,000 kWh of electricity at port. The total cost increase per year would be 747,000 EUR.

TEFLES shows a broad range of possibilities with an impact on emission reduction achieving levels of emission reductions comparable to LNG, although less cost efficient at current LNG pricing, thus not considering additional LNG costs coming from new distribution infrastructure both at storage and bunkering levels.

As a conclusion the outcome of the Project relative to emissions outperforms the overall expected emissions reduction of 40% for a RoRo operating in the MoS Vigo-Nantes. If measured in terms of TEE Pack 4 achieves a 76.9% reduction.


POTENTIAL IMPACT AT MOS FLEET LEVEL

Based on the MoS Fleet Model probabilistic analysis of the 128 RoRos of Western Europe MoS (data collected by Vigo Port) the base line case emissions would be in thousands of tonnes per year: SOx 25.137 NOx 96.031 CO2 4,224.0 PM 7.621.

The implementation of Pack 4 in this fleet would result in the following emissions reductions in thousands of tonnes per year: SOx 0.886 NOx 9.852 CO2 3,695.0 PM 0.719.

The impact is obviously huge, more over if the technologies would be implemented not in 128 RoRos but in the EU RoRo fleet, 443 vessels (Navitaship 2010).


DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES

Below there is a list of the main dissemination activities:

TEFLES Web site (INOVA CONSULTORES EN EXCELENCIA E INNOVACION ESTRATEGICA, S.L.) 30/05/2011. Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) - Industry - Policy makers.

TEFLES Flyers (INOVA CONSULTORES EN EXCELENCIA E INNOVACION ESTRATEGICA, S.L.) 30/04/2011 Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) - Industry - Policy makers European Countries.

TEFLES Posters (INOVA CONSULTORES EN EXCELENCIA E INNOVACION ESTRATEGICA, S.L.) 30/04/2011. Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) - Industry - Policy makers.

Workshop 1: After treatment technologies for emissions reduction (COUPLE SYSTEMS GMBH), 14/03/2013, Green Ship Technology Conference (Germany). Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) - Industry - Policy makers

Workshop 2: Emissions reductions through ship operations in ports (INOVA CONSULTORES EN EXCELENCIA E INNOVACION ESTRATEGICA, S.L.) 11/07/2013, Green Energy Ports Conference 2013 (Spain). Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) - Industry - Policy makers

Workshop 3: Evaluation of cost-effectiveness of emission reduction scenarios (INOVA CONSULTORES EN EXCELENCIA E INNOVACION ESTRATEGICA, S.L.) 27/11/2013, Maritime and Innovation Brokerage Event 2013 (Spain). Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) - Industry - Policy makers

TEFLES Project - Workshop 1 Video (INOVA CONSULTORES EN EXCELENCIA E INNOVACION ESTRATEGICA, S.L.) 14/03/2013. Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) - Industry - Policy makers

TEFLES Project – Workshop 2 Video (INOVA CONSULTORES EN EXCELENCIA E INNOVACION ESTRATEGICA, S.L.) 11/07/2013. Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) - Industry - Policy makers European Countries

TEFLES Project – Workshop 3 Video (INOVA CONSULTORES EN EXCELENCIA E INNOVACION ESTRATEGICA, S.L.) 27/11/2013. Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) - Industry - Policy makers European Countries

Beta Seminar 1: Demonstration of the port simulation model (UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE), 11/12/2013, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) - Industry - Policy makers European Countries

Beta Seminar 2: Beta training seminar for shipboard emission estimation for motorways of the sea (ISTANBUL TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI), 17/01/2014, World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden. Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) - Industry - Policy makers.

Beta Seminar 3: Technologies and analytical models of energy efficiency and emission reduction (VICUS DESARROLLOS TECNOLOGICOS, S.L.) 30/01/2014, Port Authority of Vigo (APV), Vigo, Spain. Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) - Industry - Policy makers

Beta Seminar 4: Economic model for decision making (INOVA CONSULTORES EN EXCELENCIA E INNOVACION ESTRATEGICA, S.L.) 30/01/2014, Port Authority of Vigo (APV), Vigo, Spain. Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) - Industry - Policy makers

Beta Seminar 5: TEFLES Model Bet Test (UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE), 31/01/2014, Webinar (Internet). Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) – Industry

Articles published in the popular press: TEFLES profile (INOVA CONSULTORES EN EXCELENCIA E INNOVACION ESTRATEGICA, S.L.) 30/05/2012, “Public Service Review”, Transport (issue 29), Page 82. Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) - Industry - Policy makers

Oral presentation to a scientific event: TEFLES – an EU project for the development of technologies and scenarios for low emission shipping (COUPLE SYSTEMS GMBH), 28/03/2013, Green Ship Technology Conference 2012 (Copenhagen). Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) – Industry

Oral presentation to a scientific event: Emission abatement technologies for HFO fuelled marine diesel engines (COUPLE SYSTEMS GMBH), 28/06/2012, 2nd International Conf Next Generation Off-Highway Engines (Wiesbaden). Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) – Industry

Oral presentation to a scientific event: Promotion Marine Innovation and Research Needs for a Candidate Country, Turkey (ISTANBUL TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI), 16/06/2011, 2nd European Maritime Research and Innovation Policy (Brussels). Type of audience: Scientific community

Oral presentation to a scientific event: Presentation of TEFLES (ISTANBUL TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI), 08/06/2012, Seminar in Chamber of Shipping, Turkey. Type of audience: Industry

Oral presentation to a scientific event: A Holistic Ship Model for Variable Speed Generation System on a RoRo Vessel (UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE), 12/09/2012, Low Carbon Shipping Conference 2012 (Newcastle). Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) – Industry

Oral presentation to a scientific event: Auxiliary Drives for Emissions Reductions (UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE), 12/09/2012, Low Carbon Shipping Conference 2012 (Newcastle). Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) – Industry

Oral presentation to a scientific event: TEFLES Project (VICUS DESARROLLOS TECNOLOGICOS, S.L.) 18/10/2012, 51st Spanish Naval Architects Annual Conference (Gijón). Type of audience: Industry

Oral presentation to a scientific event: Integrated On-board Refrigeration System: Absorption Chiller & Ice-slurry Storage from Ship's Engine Low-grade Waste Heat Recovery (UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE), 06/11/2012, CIMAC UK Members Meeting 2012 (London). Type of audience: Industry

Oral presentation to a scientific event: A Decision Making Toolkit for Ship-owners Considering Investment in Scrubber Systems (COUPLE SYSTEMS GMBH), 23/01/2013, Conference A practical Guide to Scrubber Systems (London). Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) – Industry

Oral presentation to a scientific event: Marine economy and flexibility with auxiliary drives (UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE), 24/01/2013, Newcastle University Annual Research Conference 2013 (Newcastle). Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research)

Oral presentation to a scientific event: Cold ironing for greener port stays (UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE), 10/09/2013, Low Carbon Shipping Conference 2013 (London). Type of audience: Scientific community (higher education, Research) – Industry


EXPLOITABLE FOREGROUND

Below there is a list of the main exploitable foreground:

Commercial exploitation of R&D results: Reducing PM, SOx, NOx emissions more than 90% with an extra heat recovery of 46% and a slight fuel increase of below 1% (COUPLE SYSTEMS GMBH). Confidential. Product: Dry Scrubber and Compact SCR.

Commercial exploitation of R&D results: At sea ship model for analyzing fuel consumption and reducing emissions, able to consider all possible emission reduction technologies available (VICUS DESARROLLOS TECNOLÓGICOS, S.L.). Confidential. Product: At sea ship model.

Commercial exploitation of R&D results: Manoeuvring ship model able to propose the optimal path from fuel consumption and emission reduction perspective in the port approach scenario (HAMBURGISCHE SCHIFFBAU-VERSUCHSANSTALT GMBH).Confidential. Product: Manoeuvring ship model.

Commercial exploitation of R&D results: At port model capable of analyzing by means of an optimization algorithm the best topology for on shore electric power supply to the ship berths (NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY). Confidential. Product: At port model.

Exploitation of results through EU policies: MoS fleet model able to extrapolating the potential reduction of emissions of the European MoS fleet (ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY). Confidential. Product: MoS fleet model.

Commercial exploitation of R&D results: Cost-efficiency module capable of defining the cost-efficiencies of alternative strategies of emission reduction technologies (I NOVA, CONSULTORES EN EXCELENCIA E INNOVACIÓN ESTRATÉGICA, S.L.). Confidential. Product: Cost-efficiency module.

The impact on employment and business development based on improvements achievable on emission reduction by all of the project developments is estimated as follows inside the consortium:
● INOVA (technology consultancy to ports and shipowners): 2014: 200.000 sales, 2 employments / 2015: 350.000 sales, 3 employments / 2016: 500.000 sales, 3 employments
● VICUS (engineering services): 2014: 500.000 sales, 4 employments / 2015: 850.000 sales, 3 employments / 2016: 1.000.000 sales, 1 employment
● CIT (technology consultancy and training to ports and shipowners): 2014: 80.000 sales, 1 employment / 2015: 120.000 sales / 2016: 150.000 sales
● HEATMASTER (maritime heating systems for tankers and other ships with hot water, thermal oil or steam): 2014: 350.000 sales, 1 employment / 2015: 450.000 sales, 2 employments / 2016: 600.000 sales, 1 employment
● SAFT (naval energy storage): 2014: 5.000.000 sales, 25 employments / 2015: 10.000.000 sales, 25 employments / 2016: 15.000.000 sales, 25 employments
● MWB (high value-added vessels & retrofitting): 2014: 3.000.000 sales, 15 employments / 2015: 6.000.000 sales, 30 employments / 2016: 6.000.000 sales, 30 employments

List of Websites:
TEFLES website: www.tefles.eu

● Inova, Consultores en Excelencia e Innovación Estratégica, S.L. (INOVA) – Project Coordinator. Contact persons: Alberto Casal – Project Coordinator ([e-mail]) Carla Piñeiro ([e-mail])
● Vicus Desarrollos Tecnológicos, S.L. (VICUS) – Technical Coordinator. Contact persons: Adrián Sarasquete ([e-mail]) Aitor Juandó ([e-mail])
● Consultores Investigación Tecnológica, S.L. (CIT). Contact person: Juan B. Pérez Prat ([e-mail])
● Hamburgische Schiffbau Versuchsanstalt GmbH (HSVA). Contact person: Dr. Jochen Marzi ([e-mail]) Marco Schneider ([e-mail])
● Hijos de J. Barreras, S.A. (BARRERAS). Contact person: Alfonso López ([e-mail])
● Istanbul Technical University (ITU). Contact person: Assoc. Prof. Ismail H Helvacioglu ([e-mail])
● Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo (APV). Contact person: Carlos Botana ([e-mail])
● Saft Batteries, S.A. (SAFT). Contact person: Didier Jouffroy ([e-mail])
● Heatmaster, B.V. (HEATMASTER). Contact person: Henk Oudman ([e-mail])
● Newcastle University (UNEW). Contact person: Prof. Tony Roskilly ([e-mail]) Dr Bashar Zahawi ([e-mail])
● MWB Motorenwerke Bremerhaven AG (MWB). Contact person: Björn Berndt ([e-mail]) Conrad Schmidt ([e-mail])

Related documents

• final1-tefles-workflow.pdf