Ice breaking LNG tankers


#1

Teekay got a 15 year gig to move the Yamal LNG. Looking at those ships gets my imagination all fired up. Are they the sexiest thing that float, or what?

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/teekay-lng-partners-signs-time-charter-contract-previously-uncommitted-newbuilding-nyse-tgp-2161571.htm

And here, from this site, from January, a map showing the routes for those tankers.

http://gcaptain.com/first-icebreaking-yamal-lng-carrier-launched-at-dsme/


#2

[QUOTE=Emrobu;190880]Looking at those ships gets my imagination all fired up. Are they the sexiest thing that float, or what?[/QUOTE]

You have a warped sense of what sexy looks like.


#3

Think what you think, but having a nearly 1000’ long and 165’ wide tanker sailing through nearly 7’ thick ice without having to rely on icebreakers is quite a feat.


#4

all fancy developments but there seems to be downside as well to LNG powered vessels:

Methane emissions from LNG-powered ships higher than current marine fuel oils


#5

[QUOTE=Drill Bill;190920]all fancy developments but there seems to be downside as well to LNG powered vessels:

Methane emissions from LNG-powered ships higher than current marine fuel oils[/QUOTE]

Thanks for that, I was not aware. Should be interesting to see those issues are solved.


#6

[QUOTE=Emrobu;190928]Thanks for that, I was not aware. Should be interesting to see those issues are solved.[/QUOTE]

Interesting indeed.

I believe that LNG is regasified before being used to fuel engines and boilers on ships?

In that case doesn’t it follow that the Power Stations fired by Natural Gas, which is touted as “green”, “environmentally friendly” etc., is also equally polluting and damaging to the environment and global climate as those ships?

It appears that there is a lot of misconceptions, misinformation and possibly hypocrisy around the whole use of gas as a cleaner alternative fuel.

Only Hydrogen is truly “Clean Fuel”, but how do you produce it without taking energy from a non-polluting source? (Hydro. Wind, Solar etc.)

Here is one company that think Hydrogen is the future: http://syslagronn.no/2016/09/29/syslagronn/fornybarenergi/avhengig-av-stotte-om-vi-skal-satse-pa-hydrogen-her_159433/?_ga=1.173158955.9

But will they succeed in convincing the world that it is actually “green”, not just a hoax??

PS> Hope that link function and translate reasonably well in GT.


#7

It isn’t regassified so much as the boil off gas is used rather than reliquified. I think. Good point about the electrical generation pollution thing, though. I think it’s also true that when the gas is piped around to people’s furnaces and stoves etc, it also leaks out here and there contributing to emissions. This has been known for a time, now. It was being called-out as a drawback since before Al Gore invented the Internet. But never mind that, we aren’t trying to save the planet, we’re trying to create a market.


#8

[QUOTE=Emrobu;190940]It isn’t regassified so much as the boil off gas is used rather than reliquified. I think. Good point about the electrical generation pollution thing, though. I think it’s also true that when the gas is piped around to people’s furnaces and stoves etc, it also leaks out here and there contributing to emissions. This has been known for a time, now. It was being called-out as a drawback since before Al Gore invented the Internet. But never mind that, we aren’t trying to save the planet, we’re trying to create a market.[/QUOTE]

You are right, presently many (not all) LNG Carriers use boil off when they have cargo on board, but not as only or even main fuel supply, which is still HFO. Other ships powered by LNG have to regasify the fuel before it can be used in the engines or boilers.

My point was that if both ships and power stations use the same form of fuel (Natural Gas in gas form) they must pollute equally, at least when it comes to climate gasses. It thus follows that Hydrogen or Battery powered cars still pollutes, unless the power used to produce the Hydrogen, or recharge the batteries, comes from a non-polluting source. If the power is produced by burning coal, the pollution may be even larger than for a gasoline powered car.

In another thread I pointed out that Singapore take this into consideration when they assess the “clean” claim for such vehicles, which is simple in Singapore since all electricity is produced by Natural Gas. Equally so in Norway, where 100% is hydro electric.
Apparently not many other do. Or am I wrong here?
What does EU, US and Canada do in this respect?


#9

[QUOTE=ombugge;190947]My point was that if both ships and power stations use the same form of fuel (Natural Gas in gas form) they must pollute equally, at least when it comes to climate gasses.[/QUOTE]

Do boilers suffer from “methane slip” in the same way as dual-fuel or gas engines?


#10

[QUOTE=Tups;191047]Do boilers suffer from “methane slip” in the same way as dual-fuel or gas engines?[/QUOTE]

Was wondering that myself. One would assume not. The flame of a burner being continuous vs injecting a pilot fuel and gas into a cylinder where mixing, ignition, flame propagation are somewhat variable and unburned fuel more probable. Although any combustion would have some unburned depending on oxygen available etc. But let’s face it, if it was perfect there’d be no need for soot blowers.

I also assumed the study was referring to ship with Diesel engines since that is the trend whereas power plants ashore would more than likely be steam turbine. Could be Wartsila and the rest have to go back to the drawing board and optimize combustion spaces or injection methods to reduce this slip they speak of.


#11

[QUOTE=Drill Bill;190920]all fancy developments but there seems to be downside as well to LNG powered vessels:

Methane emissions from LNG-powered ships higher than current marine fuel oils[/QUOTE]

I’m not a shill for MAN, never-the-less here’s what their promo material says about how they’ve cut down on the methane slip problem.

The ME-GI offers a robust combustion solution with the highest fuel efficiency available in the market. The robust combustion also ensures a high effi- ciency with a negligible methane slip. 0.2% has been measured as a maximum when the engine was operating at low load.

The gas is supplied directly into an ongoing combustion. Consequently, the risk of having unburnt gas that might slip past the piston rings and into the scavenge air receiver is considered to be unlikely. Monitoring of the scavenge air receiver pressure and the combustion condition also safeguards against such a situation.

And the link has some cute diagrams. All their promo stuff is so slick. Except the video that promotes this ME-GI engine (see youtube). Not slick. I’m sure that talking-guy is a talented engineer. I hope so, anyway.


#12

I was wondering what that “0.2%” number really meant. Here, in this little hand-out, it is all explained a little more clearly. I betcha 0.2 g/kilowatt hr is the way the spec should be quoted.

The methane slip on the ME-GI is virtually undetectable due to its operation in the Diesel cycle. When measurable, it is some [B]0.2 g gas per kWh[/B]. The methane slip from an Otto cycle engine during routine operation can be up to 5% of the gas and, during manoeuvring, can be 10%. This represents a direct efficiency loss since methane is, in fact, the fuel and this is an unburned or wasted portion that needs to be added to the gas consumption number. Note that methane is over 36 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Additionally, since it reflects unburned gas that performed no useful purpose in the engine, it is an important factor in the specific gas consumption.


#13

[QUOTE=Tups;191047]Do boilers suffer from “methane slip” in the same way as dual-fuel or gas engines?[/QUOTE]

Yes, about 1kg per million standard cubic feet of gas.

It is too early in the morning to do all the conversions necessary to make a direct comparison.


#14

[QUOTE=Steamer;191369]Yes, about 1kg per million standard cubic feet of gas.

It is too early in the morning to do all the conversions necessary to make a direct comparison.[/QUOTE]

How many kilowatt hrs do we get for a million cubic feet of gas in a boiler?

I know this is the sort of question that I should be able to answer if a Cheif pops it on me, but have mercy, fellas. I haven’t done a problem like that before. It seems to me that it would depend on the boiler, is that correct? If you give me a clue, I will try to figure it out myself.


#15

[QUOTE=Emrobu;191378]How many kilowatt hrs do we get for a million cubic feet of gas in a boiler?[/QUOTE]

Shoreside power plants produce about 99kwh per 1000 standard cubic feet according to Google sources but you really need to confirm that from a highly reliable and knowledgeable source like DSD.


#16

[QUOTE=Steamer;191383]Shoreside power plants produce about 99kwh per 1000 standard cubic feet according to Google sources but you really need to confirm that from a highly reliable and knowledgeable source like DSD.[/QUOTE]

No can do, boss. I have a troll allergy. I will do the math to compare these steam plants, Otto cycle DF engines, and diesel cycle DF engines based on that number, though.

According to hy-Bon.com 50’000 SCF of natural gas is 2636.4 lbs. That number works out to about 242 g/kwh for this googled up steam power plant.

According to this guy, an Otto cycle duel fuel engine can average 25% less than a sea-going natural gas steam plant. If we assume that a seagoing steam plant does as well as a shore-based steam plant, then we can guess that the Otto cycle DF engine gives us a kwh for every 182 grams of natural gas. That same guy also says that the diesel cycle DF engine can average 50% less than its sea-going steam equivalent, which is something like 121 g/kwh.

The promo material says that the most fuel gas wasted up the stack by the diesel cycle DF is 0.2 g/kwh, which is 1.7 % of the 121 g that was put in. But usually so much less as to be “undetectable.” It also says that the Otto cycle DF engine slips 5-10% of its fuel, which would be 9-18 g/kwh. Steamer, you say that a land-based natural gas steam genny slips 1000 g/1000000 SCF. When I do the conversation assuming that it is using 242 g/kwh, it only slips 0.01 g/kwh, which is 0.04% of the fuel.

That’s an interesting result. The steam plant uses twice the fuel for each unit of power, but puts out only 1% as many CH4s. It must put out about twice the CO2, though. But CO2 is way better for your global warming contribution report than CH4. I guess if you want to save money on fuel, you choose a diesel cycle DF engine and if you want to report a low global warming number you choose a steam plant. Although, presumably the ME-GIs that are used for onshore power generation nearly always operate in the optimal “undetectable” slip condition, so maybe it’s the all-around optimum.

Do my numbers look reasonable to you guys?

Btw, the ships mentioned in the OP are using this ME-GI engine.


#17

Steel cutting for the second Teekay LNG tanker has been held: http://www.lngworldshipping.com/news/view,teekay-lng-cuts-steel-at-dsme-for-yamals-irudolf-samoylovichi_45669.htm


#18

Latest on the Teekay LNG carriers: http://teekay.com/blog/2017/01/26/launch-teekays-first-icebreaker-lng-carrier/


#19

[QUOTE=ombugge;194752]Latest on the Teekay LNG carriers: http://teekay.com/blog/2017/01/26/launch-teekays-first-icebreaker-lng-carrier/[/QUOTE]

And they named her after this guy:

Here’s to Eduard Toll: May she have a long life and a happy crew.


#20

That’s one big icebreaker…