Alternative marine energy carrier impact on ship powering and the environment

A comparative conceptual LCA of the operational stage of ship types with alternative marine energy carriers

Master thesis (2023)

Authors

A.M. Snaathorst Mechanical Engineering

Contributors

J.F.J. Pruyn Ship Design, Production and Operations - Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering (supervisor 1)
Sander Bot (supervisor 1)
Faculty
Mechanical Engineering
Copyright: © 2023 Andrew Snaathorst
Environmental impact Alternative fuels Ship design Life cycle assessment (LCA) Powering impact Alternative energy carriers
More Info
expand_more

Published Date

23-01-2023

Language

English

Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Faculty

Mechanical Engineering

Abstract

This thesis investigates the total environmental impact of various alternative marine energy carriers while taking the powering increase into account due to their disadvantageous spatial requirements compared to conventional fuel. A parametric design tool for bulk carriers, tankers, container ships, and trailing suction hopper dredgers has been developed for the future marine energy carriers to determine the total installed engine power increase. A more environmentally friendly energy carrier can be overturned because the total installed engine power increase is proportionate to the energy consumption increase. A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) has been performed on fuel oil, methanol, LNG, liquid hydrogen, ammonia, and batteries for the conventional and a bio/renewable version of their well-to-wake pathway. The powering impact results indicate that all ship type and energy carrier combinations require a higher total installed main engine power and consequently a higher energy carrier consumption. The total environmental impact results indicate that only renewable liquid hydrogen and renewable ammonia have less adverse effects on global warming, and cause less damage to human health, ecosystems, and natural resource availability.