Environmental analysis of a Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) plant hybridised with different fossil and renewable fuels

The environmental performance of a 50 MW parabolic trough Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) plant hybridised with different fuels was determined using a Life Cycle Assessment methodology. Six different scenarios were investigated, half of which involved hybridisation with fossil fuels (natural gas, coal and fuel oil), and the other three involved hybridisation with renewable fuels (wheat straw, wood pellets and biogas). Each scenario was compared to a solar-only operation. Nine different environmental categories as well as the Cumulative Energy Demand and the Energy Payback Time (EPT) were evaluated using Simapro software for 1 MWh of electricity produced. The results indicate a worse environmental performance for a CSP plant producing 12% of the electricity from fuel than in a solar-only operation for every indicator, except for the eutrophication and toxicity categories, whose results for the natural gas scenario are slightly better. In the climate change category, the results ranged between 26.9 and 187 kg CO2 eq/MWh, where a solar-only operation had the best results and coal hybridisation had the worst. Considering a weighted single score indicator, the environmental impact of the renewable fuels scenarios is approximately half of those considered in fossil fuels, with the straw scenario showing the best results, and the coal scenario the worstones. EPT for solar-only mode is 1.44 years, while hybridisation scenarios EPT vary in a range of 1.72 -1.83 years for straw and pellets respectively. The fuels with more embodied energy are biomethane and wood pellets.

Evaluación de las Consecuencias de la Nueva Regulación de la OMI sobre Combustibles Marinos

El 10 de octubre de 2008 la Organización Marítima Internacional (OMI) firmó una modificación al Anexo VI del convenio MARPOL 73/78, por la que estableció una reducción progresiva de las emisiones de óxidos de azufre (SOx) procedentes de los buques, una reducción adicional de las emisiones de óxidos de nitrógeno (NOx), así como límites en las emisiones de dióxido de Carbono (CO2) procedentes de los motores marinos y causantes de problemas medioambientales como la lluvia ácida y efecto invernadero. Centrándonos en los límites sobre las emisiones de azufre, a partir del 1 de enero de 2015 esta normativa obliga a todos los buques que naveguen por zonas controladas, llamadas Emission Control Area (ECA), a consumir combustibles con un contenido de azufre menor al 0,1%. A partir del 1 de enero del año 2020, o bien del año 2025, si la OMI decide retrasar su inicio, los buques deberán consumir combustibles con un contenido de azufre menor al 0,5%. De igual forma que antes, el contenido deberá ser rebajado al 0,1%S, si navegan por el interior de zonas ECA. Por su parte, la Unión Europea ha ido más allá que la OMI, adelantando al año 2020 la aplicación de los límites más estrictos de la ley MARPOL sobre las aguas de su zona económica exclusiva. Para ello, el 21 de noviembre de 2013 firmó la Directiva 2012 / 33 / EU como adenda a la Directiva de 1999. Tengamos presente que la finalidad de estas nuevas leyes es la mejora de la salud pública y el medioambiente, produciendo beneficios sociales, en forma de reducción de enfermedades, sobre todo de tipo respiratorio, a la vez que se reduce la lluvia ácida y sus nefastas consecuencias. La primera pregunta que surge es ¿cuál es el combustible actual de los buques y cuál será el que tengan que consumir para cumplir con esta Regulación? Pues bien, los grandes buques de navegación internacional consumen hoy en día fuel oil con un nivel de azufre de 3,5%. ¿Existen fueles con un nivel de azufre de 0,5%S? Como hemos concluido en el capítulo 4, para las empresas petroleras, la producción de fuel oil como combustible marino es tratada como un subproducto en su cesta de productos refinados por cada barril de Brent, ya que la demanda de fuel respecto a otros productos está bajando y además, el margen de beneficio que obtienen por la venta de otros productos petrolíferos es mayor que con el fuel. Así, podemos decir que las empresas petroleras no están interesadas en invertir en sus refinerías para producir estos fueles con menor contenido de azufre. Es más, en el caso de que alguna compañía decidiese invertir en producir un fuel de 0,5%S, su precio debería ser muy similar al del gasóleo para poder recuperar las inversiones empleadas. Por lo tanto, el único combustible que actualmente cumple con los nuevos niveles impuestos por la OMI es el gasóleo, con un precio que durante el año 2014 estuvo a una media de 307 USD/ton más alto que el actual fuel oil. Este mayor precio de compra de combustible impactará directamente sobre el coste del trasporte marítimo. La entrada en vigor de las anteriores normativas está suponiendo un reto para todo el sector marítimo. Ante esta realidad, se plantean diferentes alternativas con diferentes implicaciones técnicas, operativas y financieras. En la actualidad, son tres las alternativas con mayor aceptación en el sector. La primera alternativa consiste en “no hacer nada” y simplemente cambiar el tipo de combustible de los grandes buques de fuel oil a gasóleo. Las segunda alternativa es la instalación de un equipo scrubber, que permitiría continuar con el consumo de fuel oil, limpiando sus gases de combustión antes de salir a la atmósfera. Y, por último, la tercera alternativa consiste en el uso de Gas Natural Licuado (GNL) como combustible, con un precio inferior al del gasóleo. Sin embargo, aún existen importantes incertidumbres sobre la evolución futura de precios, operación y mantenimiento de las nuevas tecnologías, inversiones necesarias, disponibilidad de infraestructura portuaria e incluso el desarrollo futuro de la propia normativa internacional. Estas dudas hacen que ninguna de estas tres alternativas sea unánime en el sector. En esta tesis, tras exponer en el capítulo 3 la regulación aplicable al sector, hemos investigado sus consecuencias. Para ello, hemos examinado en el capítulo 4 si existen en la actualidad combustibles marinos que cumplan con los nuevos límites de azufre o en su defecto, cuál sería el precio de los nuevos combustibles. Partimos en el capítulo 5 de la hipótesis de que todos los buques cambian su consumo de fuel oil a gasóleo para cumplir con dicha normativa, calculamos el incremento de demanda de gasóleo que se produciría y analizamos las consecuencias que este hecho tendría sobre la producción de gasóleos en el Mediterráneo. Adicionalmente, calculamos el impacto económico que dicho incremento de coste producirá sobre sector exterior de España. Para ello, empleamos como base de datos el sistema de control de tráfico marítimo Authomatic Identification System (AIS) para luego analizar los datos de todos los buques que han hecho escala en algún puerto español, para así calcular el extra coste anual por el consumo de gasóleo que sufrirá el transporte marítimo para mover todas las importaciones y exportaciones de España. Por último, en el capítulo 6, examinamos y comparamos las otras dos alternativas al consumo de gasóleo -scrubbers y propulsión con GNL como combustible- y, finalmente, analizamos en el capítulo 7, la viabilidad de las inversiones en estas dos tecnologías para cumplir con la regulación. En el capítulo 5 explicamos los numerosos métodos que existen para calcular la demanda de combustible de un buque. La metodología seguida para su cálculo será del tipo bottom-up, que está basada en la agregación de la actividad y las características de cada tipo de buque. El resultado está basado en la potencia instalada de cada buque, porcentaje de carga del motor y su consumo específico. Para ello, analizamos el número de buques que navegan por el Mediterráneo a lo largo de un año mediante el sistema AIS, realizando “fotos” del tráfico marítimo en el Mediterráneo y reportando todos los buques en navegación en días aleatorios a lo largo de todo el año 2014. Por último, y con los datos anteriores, calculamos la demanda potencial de gasóleo en el Mediterráneo. Si no se hace nada y los buques comienzan a consumir gasóleo como combustible principal, en vez del actual fuel oil para cumplir con la regulación, la demanda de gasoil en el Mediterráneo aumentará en 12,12 MTA (Millones de Toneladas Anuales) a partir del año 2020. Esto supone alrededor de 3.720 millones de dólares anuales por el incremento del gasto de combustible tomando como referencia el precio medio de los combustibles marinos durante el año 2014. El anterior incremento de demanda en el Mediterráneo supondría el 43% del total de la demanda de gasóleos en España en el año 2013, incluyendo gasóleos de automoción, biodiesel y gasóleos marinos y el 3,2% del consumo europeo de destilados medios durante el año 2014. ¿Podrá la oferta del mercado europeo asumir este incremento de demanda de gasóleos? Europa siempre ha sido excedentaria en gasolina y deficitaria en destilados medios. En el año 2009, Europa tuvo que importar 4,8 MTA de Norte América y 22,1 MTA de Asia. Por lo que, este aumento de demanda sobre la ya limitada capacidad de refino de destilados medios en Europa incrementará las importaciones y producirá también aumentos en los precios, sobre todo del mercado del gasóleo. El sector sobre el que más impactará el incremento de demanda de gasóleo será el de los cruceros que navegan por el Mediterráneo, pues consumirán un 30,4% de la demanda de combustible de toda flota mundial de cruceros, lo que supone un aumento en su gasto de combustible de 386 millones de USD anuales. En el caso de los RoRos, consumirían un 23,6% de la demanda de la flota mundial de este tipo de buque, con un aumento anual de 171 millones de USD sobre su gasto de combustible anterior. El mayor incremento de coste lo sufrirán los portacontenedores, con 1.168 millones de USD anuales sobre su gasto actual. Sin embargo, su consumo en el Mediterráneo representa sólo el 5,3% del consumo mundial de combustible de este tipo de buques. Estos números plantean la incertidumbre de si semejante aumento de gasto en buques RoRo hará que el transporte marítimo de corta distancia en general pierda competitividad sobre otros medios de transporte alternativos en determinadas rutas. De manera que, parte del volumen de mercancías que actualmente transportan los buques se podría trasladar a la carretera, con los inconvenientes medioambientales y operativos, que esto produciría. En el caso particular de España, el extra coste por el consumo de gasóleo de todos los buques con escala en algún puerto español en el año 2013 se cifra en 1.717 millones de EUR anuales, según demostramos en la última parte del capítulo 5. Para realizar este cálculo hemos analizado con el sistema AIS a todos los buques que han tenido escala en algún puerto español y los hemos clasificado por distancia navegada, tipo de buque y potencia. Este encarecimiento del transporte marítimo será trasladado al sector exterior español, lo cual producirá un aumento del coste de las importaciones y exportaciones por mar en un país muy expuesto, pues el 75,61% del total de las importaciones y el 53,64% del total de las exportaciones se han hecho por vía marítima. Las tres industrias que se verán más afectadas son aquellas cuyo valor de mercancía es inferior respecto a su coste de transporte. Para ellas los aumentos del coste sobre el total del valor de cada mercancía serán de un 2,94% para la madera y corcho, un 2,14% para los productos minerales y un 1,93% para las manufacturas de piedra, cemento, cerámica y vidrio. Las mercancías que entren o salgan por los dos archipiélagos españoles de Canarias y Baleares serán las que se verán más impactadas por el extra coste del transporte marítimo, ya que son los puertos más alejados de otros puertos principales y, por tanto, con más distancia de navegación. Sin embargo, esta no es la única alternativa al cumplimiento de la nueva regulación. De la lectura del capítulo 6 concluimos que las tecnologías de equipos scrubbers y de propulsión con GNL permitirán al buque consumir combustibles más baratos al gasoil, a cambio de una inversión en estas tecnologías. ¿Serán los ahorros producidos por estas nuevas tecnologías suficientes para justificar su inversión? Para contestar la anterior pregunta, en el capítulo 7 hemos comparado las tres alternativas y hemos calculado tanto los costes de inversión como los gastos operativos correspondientes a equipos scrubbers o propulsión con GNL para una selección de 53 categorías de buques. La inversión en equipos scrubbers es más conveniente para buques grandes, con navegación no regular. Sin embargo, para buques de tamaño menor y navegación regular por puertos con buena infraestructura de suministro de GNL, la inversión en una propulsión con GNL como combustible será la más adecuada. En el caso de un tiempo de navegación del 100% dentro de zonas ECA y bajo el escenario de precios visto durante el año 2014, los proyectos con mejor plazo de recuperación de la inversión en equipos scrubbers son para los cruceros de gran tamaño (100.000 tons. GT), para los que se recupera la inversión en 0,62 años, los grandes portacontenedores de más de 8.000 TEUs con 0,64 años de recuperación y entre 5.000-8.000 TEUs con 0,71 años de recuperación y, por último, los grandes petroleros de más de 200.000 tons. de peso muerto donde tenemos un plazo de recuperación de 0,82 años. La inversión en scrubbers para buques pequeños, por el contrario, tarda más tiempo en recuperarse llegando a más de 5 años en petroleros y quimiqueros de menos de 5.000 toneladas de peso muerto. En el caso de una posible inversión en propulsión con GNL, las categorías de buques donde la inversión en GNL es más favorable y recuperable en menor tiempo son las más pequeñas, como ferris, cruceros o RoRos. Tomamos ahora el caso particular de un buque de productos limpios de 38.500 toneladas de peso muerto ya construido y nos planteamos la viabilidad de la inversión en la instalación de un equipo scrubber o bien, el cambio a una propulsión por GNL a partir del año 2015. Se comprueba que las dos variables que más impactan sobre la conveniencia de la inversión son el tiempo de navegación del buque dentro de zonas de emisiones controladas (ECA) y el escenario futuro de precios del MGO, HSFO y GNL. Para realizar este análisis hemos estudiado cada inversión, calculando una batería de condiciones de mérito como el payback, TIR, VAN y la evolución de la tesorería del inversor. Posteriormente, hemos calculado las condiciones de contorno mínimas de este buque en concreto para asegurar una inversión no sólo aceptable, sino además conveniente para el naviero inversor. En el entorno de precios del 2014 -con un diferencial entre fuel y gasóleo de 264,35 USD/ton- si el buque pasa más de un 56% de su tiempo de navegación en zonas ECA, conseguirá una rentabilidad de la inversión para inversores (TIR) en el equipo scrubber que será igual o superior al 9,6%, valor tomado como coste de oportunidad. Para el caso de inversión en GNL, en el entorno de precios del año 2014 -con un diferencial entre GNL y gasóleo de 353,8 USD/ton FOE- si el buque pasa más de un 64,8 % de su tiempo de navegación en zonas ECA, conseguirá una rentabilidad de la inversión para inversores (TIR) que será igual o superior al 9,6%, valor del coste de oportunidad. Para un tiempo en zona ECA estimado de un 60%, la rentabilidad de la inversión (TIR) en scrubbers para los inversores será igual o superior al 9,6%, el coste de oportunidad requerido por el inversor, para valores del diferencial de precio entre los dos combustibles alternativos, gasóleo (MGO) y fuel oil (HSFO) a partir de 244,73 USD/ton. En el caso de una inversión en propulsión GNL se requeriría un diferencial de precio entre MGO y GNL de 382,3 USD/ton FOE o superior. Así, para un buque de productos limpios de 38.500 DWT, la inversión en una reconversión para instalar un equipo scrubber es más conveniente que la de GNL, pues alcanza rentabilidades de la inversión (TIR) para inversores del 12,77%, frente a un 6,81% en el caso de invertir en GNL. Para ambos cálculos se ha tomado un buque que navegue un 60% de su tiempo por zona ECA y un escenario de precios medios del año 2014 para el combustible. Po otro lado, las inversiones en estas tecnologías a partir del año 2025 para nuevas construcciones son en ambos casos convenientes. El naviero deberá prestar especial atención aquí a las características propias de su buque y tipo de navegación, así como a la infraestructura de suministros y vertidos en los puertos donde vaya a operar usualmente. Si bien, no se ha estudiado en profundidad en esta tesis, no olvidemos que el sector marítimo debe cumplir además con las otras dos limitaciones que la regulación de la OMI establece sobre las emisiones de óxidos de Nitrógeno (NOx) y Carbono (CO2) y que sin duda, requerirán adicionales inversiones en diversos equipos. De manera que, si bien las consecuencias del consumo de gasóleo como alternativa al cumplimiento de la Regulación MARPOL son ciertamente preocupantes, existen alternativas al uso del gasóleo, con un aumento sobre el coste del transporte marítimo menor y manteniendo los beneficios sociales que pretende dicha ley. En efecto, como hemos demostrado, las opciones que se plantean como más rentables desde el punto de vista financiero son el consumo de GNL en los buques pequeños y de línea regular (cruceros, ferries, RoRos), y la instalación de scrubbers para el resto de buques de grandes dimensiones. Pero, por desgracia, estas inversiones no llegan a hacerse realidad por el elevado grado de incertidumbre asociado a estos dos mercados, que aumenta el riesgo empresarial, tanto de navieros como de suministradores de estas nuevas tecnologías. Observamos así una gran reticencia del sector privado a decidirse por estas dos alternativas. Este elevado nivel de riesgo sólo puede reducirse fomentando el esfuerzo conjunto del sector público y privado para superar estas barreras de entrada del mercado de scrubbers y GNL, que lograrían reducir las externalidades medioambientales de las emisiones sin restar competitividad al transporte marítimo. Creemos así, que los mismos organismos que aprobaron dicha ley deben ayudar al sector naviero a afrontar las inversiones en dichas tecnologías, así como a impulsar su investigación y promover la creación de una infraestructura portuaria adaptada a suministros de GNL y a descargas de vertidos procedentes de los equipos scrubber. Deberían además, prestar especial atención sobre las ayudas al sector de corta distancia para evitar que pierda competitividad frente a otros medios de transporte por el cumplimiento de esta normativa. Actualmente existen varios programas europeos de incentivos, como TEN-T o Marco Polo, pero no los consideramos suficientes. Por otro lado, la Organización Marítima Internacional debe confirmar cuanto antes si retrasa o no al 2025 la nueva bajada del nivel de azufre en combustibles. De esta manera, se eliminaría la gran incertidumbre temporal que actualmente tienen tanto navieros, como empresas petroleras y puertos para iniciar sus futuras inversiones y poder estudiar la viabilidad de cada alternativa de forma individual. ABSTRACT On 10 October 2008 the International Maritime Organization (IMO) signed an amendment to Annex VI of the MARPOL 73/78 convention establishing a gradual reduction in sulphur oxide (SOx) emissions from ships, and an additional reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from marine engines which cause environmental problems such as acid rain and the greenhouse effect. According to this regulation, from 1 January 2015, ships travelling in an Emission Control Area (ECA) must use fuels with a sulphur content of less than 0.1%. From 1 January 2020, or alternatively from 2025 if the IMO should decide to delay its introduction, all ships must use fuels with a sulphur content of less than 0.5%. As before, this content will be 0.1%S for voyages within ECAs. Meanwhile, the European Union has gone further than the IMO, and will apply the strictest limits of the MARPOL directives in the waters of its exclusive economic zone from 2020. To this end, Directive 2012/33/EU was issued on 21 November 2013 as an addendum to the 1999 Directive. These laws are intended to improve public health and the environment, benefiting society by reducing disease, particularly respiratory problems. The first question which arises is: what fuel do ships currently use, and what fuel will they have to use to comply with the Convention? Today, large international shipping vessels consume fuel oil with a sulphur level of 3.5%. Do fuel oils exist with a sulphur level of 0.5%S? As we conclude in Chapter 4, oil companies regard marine fuel oil as a by-product of refining Brent to produce their basket of products, as the demand for fuel oil is declining in comparison to other products, and the profit margin on the sale of other petroleum products is higher. Thus, oil companies are not interested in investing in their refineries to produce low-sulphur fuel oils, and if a company should decide to invest in producing a 0.5%S fuel oil, its price would have to be very similar to that of marine gas oil in order to recoup the investment. Therefore, the only fuel which presently complies with the new levels required by the IMO is marine gas oil, which was priced on average 307 USD/tonne higher than current fuel oils during 2014. This higher purchasing price for fuel will have a direct impact on the cost of maritime transport. The entry into force of the above directive presents a challenge for the entire maritime sector. There are various alternative approaches to this situation, with different technical, operational and financial implications. At present three options are the most widespread in the sector. The first option consists of “doing nothing” and simply switching from fuel oil to marine gas oil in large ships. The second option is installing a scrubber system, which would enable ships to continue consuming fuel oil, cleaning the combustion gases before they are released to the atmosphere. And finally, the third option is using Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), which is priced lower than marine gas oil, as a fuel. However, there is still significant uncertainty on future variations in prices, the operation and maintenance of the new technologies, the investments required, the availability of port infrastructure and even future developments in the international regulations themselves. These uncertainties mean that none of these three alternatives has been unanimously accepted by the sector. In this Thesis, after discussing all the regulations applicable to the sector in Chapter 3, we investigate their consequences. In Chapter 4 we examine whether there are currently any marine fuels on the market which meet the new sulphur limits, and if not, how much new fuels would cost. In Chapter 5, based on the hypothesis that all ships will switch from fuel oil to marine gas oil to comply with the regulations, we calculate the increase in demand for marine gas oil this would lead to, and analyse the consequences this would have on marine gas oil production in the Mediterranean. We also calculate the economic impact such a cost increase would have on Spain's external sector. To do this, we also use the Automatic Identification System (AIS) system to analyse the data of every ship stopping in any Spanish port, in order to calculate the extra cost of using marine gas oil in maritime transport for all Spain's imports and exports. Finally, in Chapter 6, we examine and compare the other two alternatives to marine gas oil, scrubbers and LNG, and in Chapter 7 we analyse the viability of investing in these two technologies in order to comply with the regulations. In Chapter 5 we explain the many existing methods for calculating a ship's fuel consumption. We use a bottom-up calculation method, based on aggregating the activity and characteristics of each type of vessel. The result is based on the installed engine power of each ship, the engine load percentage and its specific consumption. To do this, we analyse the number of ships travelling in the Mediterranean in the course of one year, using the AIS, a marine traffic monitoring system, to take “snapshots” of marine traffic in the Mediterranean and report all ships at sea on random days throughout 2014. Finally, with the above data, we calculate the potential demand for marine gas oil in the Mediterranean. If nothing else is done and ships begin to use marine gas oil instead of fuel oil in order to comply with the regulation, the demand for marine gas oil in the Mediterranean will increase by 12.12 MTA (Millions Tonnes per Annum) from 2020. This means an increase of around 3.72 billion dollars a year in fuel costs, taking as reference the average price of marine fuels in 2014. Such an increase in demand in the Mediterranean would be equivalent to 43% of the total demand for diesel in Spain in 2013, including automotive diesel fuels, biodiesel and marine gas oils, and 3.2% of European consumption of middle distillates in 2014. Would the European market be able to supply enough to meet this greater demand for diesel? Europe has always had a surplus of gasoline and a deficit of middle distillates. In 2009, Europe had to import 4.8 MTA from North America and 22.1 MTA from Asia. Therefore, this increased demand on Europe's already limited capacity for refining middle distillates would lead to increased imports and higher prices, especially in the diesel market. The sector which would suffer the greatest impact of increased demand for marine gas oil would be Mediterranean cruise ships, which represent 30.4% of the fuel demand of the entire world cruise fleet, meaning their fuel costs would rise by 386 million USD per year. ROROs in the Mediterranean, which represent 23.6% of the demand of the world fleet of this type of ship, would see their fuel costs increase by 171 million USD a year. The greatest cost increase would be among container ships, with an increase on current costs of 1.168 billion USD per year. However, their consumption in the Mediterranean represents only 5.3% of worldwide fuel consumption by container ships. These figures raise the question of whether a cost increase of this size for RORO ships would lead to short-distance marine transport in general becoming less competitive compared to other transport options on certain routes. For example, some of the goods that ships now carry could switch to road transport, with the undesirable effects on the environment and on operations that this would produce. In the particular case of Spain, the extra cost of switching to marine gas oil in all ships stopping at any Spanish port in 2013 would be 1.717 billion EUR per year, as we demonstrate in the last part of Chapter 5. For this calculation, we used the AIS system to analyse all ships which stopped at any Spanish port, classifying them by distance travelled, type of ship and engine power. This rising cost of marine transport would be passed on to the Spanish external sector, increasing the cost of imports and exports by sea in a country which relies heavily on maritime transport, which accounts for 75.61% of Spain's total imports and 53.64% of its total exports. The three industries which would be worst affected are those with goods of lower value relative to transport costs. The increased costs over the total value of each good would be 2.94% for wood and cork, 2.14% for mineral products and 1.93% for manufactured stone, cement, ceramic and glass products. Goods entering via the two Spanish archipelagos, the Canary Islands and the Balearic Islands, would suffer the greatest impact from the extra cost of marine transport, as these ports are further away from other major ports and thus the distance travelled is greater. However, this is not the only option for compliance with the new regulations. From our readings in Chapter 6 we conclude that scrubbers and LNG propulsion would enable ships to use cheaper fuels than marine gas oil, in exchange for investing in these technologies. Would the savings gained by these new technologies be enough to justify the investment? To answer this question, in Chapter 7 we compare the three alternatives and calculate both the cost of investment and the operating costs associated with scrubbers or LNG propulsion for a selection of 53 categories of ships. Investing in scrubbers is more advisable for large ships with no fixed runs. However, for smaller ships with regular runs to ports with good LNG supply infrastructure, investing in LNG propulsion would be the best choice. In the case of total transit time within an ECA and the pricing scenario seen in 2014, the best payback periods on investments in scrubbers are for large cruise ships (100,000 gross tonnage), which would recoup their investment in 0.62 years; large container ships, with a 0.64 year payback period for those over 8,000 TEUs and 0.71 years for the 5,000-8,000 TEU category; and finally, large oil tankers over 200,000 deadweight tonnage, which would recoup their investment in 0.82 years. However, investing in scrubbers would have a longer payback period for smaller ships, up to 5 years or more for oil tankers and chemical tankers under 5,000 deadweight tonnage. In the case of LNG propulsion, a possible investment is more favourable and the payback period is shorter for smaller ship classes, such as ferries, cruise ships and ROROs. We now take the case of a ship transporting clean products, already built, with a deadweight tonnage of 38,500, and consider the viability of investing in installing a scrubber or changing to LNG propulsion, starting in 2015. The two variables with the greatest impact on the advisability of the investment are how long the ship is at sea within emission control areas (ECA) and the future price scenario of MGO, HSFO and LNG. For this analysis, we studied each investment, calculating a battery of merit conditions such as the payback period, IRR, NPV and variations in the investors' liquid assets. We then calculated the minimum boundary conditions to ensure the investment was not only acceptable but advisable for the investor shipowner. Thus, for the average price differential of 264.35 USD/tonne between HSFO and MGO during 2014, investors' return on investment (IRR) in scrubbers would be the same as the required opportunity cost of 9.6%, for values of over 56% ship transit time in ECAs. For the case of investing in LNG and the average price differential between MGO and LNG of 353.8 USD/tonne FOE in 2014, the ship must spend 64.8% of its time in ECAs for the investment to be advisable. For an estimated 60% of time in an ECA, the internal rate of return (IRR) for investors equals the required opportunity cost of 9.6%, based on a price difference of 244.73 USD/tonne between the two alternative fuels, marine gas oil (MGO) and fuel oil (HSFO). An investment in LNG propulsion would require a price differential between MGO and LNG of 382.3 USD/tonne FOE. Thus, for a 38,500 DWT ship carrying clean products, investing in retrofitting to install a scrubber is more advisable than converting to LNG, with an internal rate of return (IRR) for investors of 12.77%, compared to 6.81% for investing in LNG. Both calculations were based on a ship which spends 60% of its time at sea in an ECA and a scenario of average 2014 prices. However, for newly-built ships, investments in either of these technologies from 2025 would be advisable. Here, the shipowner must pay particular attention to the specific characteristics of their ship, the type of operation, and the infrastructure for supplying fuel and handling discharges in the ports where it will usually operate. Thus, while the consequences of switching to marine gas oil in order to comply with the MARPOL regulations are certainly alarming, there are alternatives to marine gas oil, with smaller increases in the costs of maritime transport, while maintaining the benefits to society this law is intended to provide. Indeed, as we have demonstrated, the options which appear most favourable from a financial viewpoint are conversion to LNG for small ships and regular runs (cruise ships, ferries, ROROs), and installing scrubbers for large ships. Unfortunately, however, these investments are not being made, due to the high uncertainty associated with these two markets, which increases business risk, both for shipowners and for the providers of these new technologies. This means we are seeing considerable reluctance regarding these two options among the private sector. This high level of risk can be lowered only by encouraging joint efforts by the public and private sectors to overcome these barriers to entry into the market for scrubbers and LNG, which could reduce the environmental externalities of emissions without affecting the competitiveness of marine transport. Our opinion is that the same bodies which approved this law must help the shipping industry invest in these technologies, drive research on them, and promote the creation of a port infrastructure which is adapted to supply LNG and handle the discharges from scrubber systems. At present there are several European incentive programmes, such as TEN-T and Marco Polo, but we do not consider these to be sufficient. For its part, the International Maritime Organization should confirm as soon as possible whether the new lower sulphur levels in fuels will be postponed until 2025. This would eliminate the great uncertainty among shipowners, oil companies and ports regarding the timeline for beginning their future investments and for studying their viability.

The potential use of bio-ultracarbofluids in a standard diesel engine

The replacement of diesel fuel by ultra-carbofluids was perceived to offer the potential to decrease the emissions of environmental pollutants such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons (HC's) and smoke. Such ultracarbofluids consist of a suspension of coal in fuel oil and water generally in the ratio of 5: 3: 2 plus a small amount of stabilising additive. The literature relating to the economies of coal and fuel oil production, and the production and properties of charcoal and vegetable oils has been critically reviewed. The potential use of charcoal and vegetable oils as replacements for coal and fuel oil are discussed. An experimental investigation was undertaken using novel bio-ultracarbofluid formulations. These differed from an ultracarbofluid by having bio-renewable charcoal and vegetable oil in place of coal and fuel oil. Tests were made with a Lister-Petter 600cc 2-cylinder, 4-stroke diesel engine fitted with a Heenan-Froude DPX 1 water brake dynamometer to measure brake power output, and Mexa-321E and Mexa-211E analysers to measure exhaust pollutants. Measurements were made of engine brake power output, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and smoke emissions over the speed range 1000 to 3000 rpm at 200 rpm intervals. The results were compared with those obtained with a standard diesel reference fuel. All the bio-ultracarbofluid formulations produced lower brake power outputs (i.e. 5.6% to 20.7% less brake power) but substantially improved exhaust emissions of CO2, CO, HC's and smoke. The major factor in the formulation was found to be the type and amount of charcoal; charcoal with a high volatile content (27.2%) and present at 30% by mass yielded the best results, i.e. only slightly lower brake power output and significantly lower exhaust pollutants.

Out of Challenge, Opportunity: Central America's Electric Sector & Key Issues and Recommendations for Enhanced Regional Electric Integration

Taken together, the six nations of Central America count a population of roughly 40 million people and an energy market equal in size to that of Colombia, sufficient to benefit from economies of scale. The region has traditionally been a net importer of hydrocarbons, and hydroelectricity has dominated electric generation. But more recently, thermoelectric generation (diesel and fuel oil) has greatly increased as a percentage of the regional generation market. Progress has been made across the region’s electric sector, beginning with reforms in the 1990s and the 1996 signing of a regional treaty aimed at the development of a regional energy integration project – the Central American Electrical Interconnection System, or SIEPAC. A fundamental SIEPAC goal is to set up a regional electric market and a regulatory system. Indeed, after many years of development, SIEPAC is poised to open a new chapter in Central America’s electric infrastructure and market. But this new era must contend with critical issues such as the need to consolidate the regional electric market, political issues surrounding the venture, and security concerns. Moreover, local conflicts, in different degrees, have become priorities for policymakers, and these are possible barriers to completing the project. The goals of the SIEPAC project and of deepening the broader electric integration process are possible if national and regional decision makers understand that cooperative decision making will produce better results than separate national decision making. Enhanced regional understanding and cooperative decision making, combined with an effort to reorient the terminology and dialogue vis-à-vis energy efficiency in Central America, form the core recommendations of this paper.

Sustainable Energy Production in the United States: Life Cycle Assessment of Biofuels and Bioenergy

The United States of America is making great efforts to transform the renewable and abundant biomass resources into cost-competitive, high-performance biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower. This is the key to increase domestic production of transportation fuels and renewable energy, and reduce greenhouse gas and other pollutant emissions. This dissertation focuses specifically on assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of biofuels and bioenergy produced from renewable feedstocks, such as lignocellulosic biomass, renewable oils and fats. The first part of the dissertation presents the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy demands of renewable diesel (RD) and hydroprocessed jet fuels (HRJ). The feedstocks include soybean, camelina, field pennycress, jatropha, algae, tallow and etc. Results show that RD and HRJ produced from these feedstocks reduce GHG emissions by over 50% compared to comparably performing petroleum fuels. Fossil energy requirements are also significantly reduced. The second part of this dissertation discusses the life cycle GHG emissions, energy demands and other environmental aspects of pyrolysis oil as well as pyrolysis oil derived biofuels and bioenergy. The feedstocks include waste materials such as sawmill residues, logging residues, sugarcane bagasse and corn stover, and short rotation forestry feedstocks such as hybrid poplar and willow. These LCA results show that as much as 98% GHG emission savings is possible relative to a petroleum heavy fuel oil. Life cycle GHG savings of 77 to 99% were estimated for power generation from pyrolysis oil combustion relative to fossil fuels combustion for electricity, depending on the biomass feedstock and combustion technologies used. Transportation fuels hydroprocessed from pyrolysis oil show over 60% of GHG reductions compared to petroleum gasoline and diesel. The energy required to produce pyrolysis oil and pyrolysis oil derived biofuels and bioelectricity are mainly from renewable biomass, as opposed to fossil energy. Other environmental benefits include human health, ecosystem quality and fossil resources. The third part of the dissertation addresses the direct land use change (dLUC) impact of forest based biofuels and bioenergy. An intensive harvest of aspen in Michigan is investigated to understand the GHG mitigation with biofuels and bioenergy production. The study shows that the intensive harvest of aspen in MI compared to business as usual (BAU) harvesting can produce 18.5 billion gallons of ethanol to blend with gasoline for the transport sector over the next 250 years, or 32.2 billion gallons of bio-oil by the fast pyrolysis process, which can be combusted to generate electricity or upgraded to gasoline and diesel. Intensive harvesting of these forests can result in carbon loss initially in the aspen forest, but eventually accumulates more carbon in the ecosystem, which translates to a CO2 credit from the dLUC impact. Time required for the forest-based biofuels to reach carbon neutrality is approximately 60 years. The last part of the dissertation describes the use of depolymerization model as a tool to understand the kinetic behavior of hemicellulose hydrolysis under dilute acid conditions. Experiments are carried out to measure the concentrations of xylose and xylooligomers during dilute acid hydrolysis of aspen. The experiment data are used to fine tune the parameters of the depolymerization model. The results show that the depolymerization model successfully predicts the xylose monomer profile in the reaction, however, it overestimates the concentrations of xylooligomers.

A comparative study of the number and mass of fine particles emitted with diesel fuel and marine gas oil (MGO)

The current investigation reports on diesel particulate matter emissions, with special interest in fine particles from the combustion of two base fuels. The base fuels selected were diesel fuel and marine gas oil (MGO). The experiments were conducted with a four-stroke, six-cylinder, direct injection diesel engine. The results showed that the fine particle number emissions measured by both SMPS and ELPI were higher with MGO compared to diesel fuel. It was observed that the fine particle number emissions with the two base fuels were quantitatively different but qualitatively similar. The gravimetric (mass basis) measurement also showed higher total particulate matter (TPM) emissions with the MGO. The smoke emissions, which were part of TPM, were also higher for the MGO. No significant changes in the mass flow rate of fuel and the brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) were observed between the two base fuels.

Novel experiment on in-cylinder desorption of fuel from the oil layer

A technique has been developed to measure the desorption and subsequent oxidation of fuel in the oil layer by spiking the oil with liquid fuel and firing the engine on gaseous fuel or motoring with air. Experiments suggest that fuel desorption is not diffusion limited above 50°C and indicated that approximately two to four percent of the cylinder oil layer is fresh oil from the sump. The increase in hydrocarbon emissions is of the order of 100 ppmC1 per 1% liquid fuel introduced into the fresh oil in a methane fired engine at mid-speed and light load conditions. Calculations indicate that fuel desorbing from oil is much more likely to produce hydrocarbon emissions than fuel emerging from crevices. © Copyright 1994 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Conversion of Soybean oil to Biodiesel Fuel with Immobilized Candida Lipase on Textile Cloth

The characteristic of biodiesel fuel production from transesterification of soybean oil is studied. The reactant solution is the mixture of soybean oil, methanol, and solvent. A new lipase immobilization method, textile cloth immobilization, was developed in this study. Immobilized Candida lipase sp. 99-125 was applied as the enzyme catalyst. The effect of flow rate of reaction liquid, solvents, reaction time, and water content on the biodiesel yield is investigated. Products analysis shows that the main components in biodiesel are methyl sterate, methyl hexadecanoate, methyl oleate, methyl linoleate, and methyl linolenate. The test results indicate that the maximum yield of biodiesel of 92% was obtained at the conditions of hexane being the solvent, water content being 20 wt%, and reaction time being 24 h.

A new method to warm up lubricating oil to improve the fuel efficiency during cold start

Cold start driving cycles exhibit an increase in friction losses due to the low temperatures of metal and media compared to normal operating engine conditions. These friction losses are responsible for up to 10% penalty in fuel economy over the official drive cycles like the New European Drive Cycle (NEDC), where the temperature of the oil even at the end of the 1180 s of the drive cycle is below the fully warmed up values of between 100°C and 120°C. At engine oil temperatures below 100°C the water from the blow by condensates and dilutes the engine oil in the oil pan which negatively affects engine wear. Therefore engine oil temperatures above 100°C are desirable to minimize engine wear through blow by condensate. The paper presents a new technique to warm up the engine oil that significantly reduces the friction losses and therefore also reduces the fuel economy penalty during a 22°C cold start NEDC. Chassis dynamometer experiments demonstrated fuel economy improvements of over 7% as well as significant emission reductions by rapidly increasing the oil temperature. Oil temperatures were increased by up to 60°C during certain parts of the NEDC. It is shown how a very simple sensitivity analysis can be used to assess the relative size or efficiency of different heat transfer passes and the resulting fuel economy improvement potential of different heat recovery systems system. Due to its simplicity the method is very fast to use and therefore also very cost effective. The method demonstrated a very good correlation for the fuel consumption within ±1% compared to measurements on a vehicle chassis roll.

Economic growth with coal, oil and renewable energy consumption in China: prospects for fuel substitution

We examine the relationship between Chinese aggregate production and consumption of three main energy commodities: coal, oil and renewable energy. Both autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) and vector error correction modeling (VECM) show that Chinese growth is led by all three energy sources. Economic growth also causes coal, oil and renewables consumption, but with negative own-price effects for coal and oil and a strong possibility of fuel substitution through positive cross-price effects. The results further show coal consumption causing pollution, while renewable energy consumption reduces emissions. No significant causation on emissions is found for oil. Hence, making coal both absolutely and relatively expensive compared to oil and renewable energy encourages shifting from coal to oil and renewable energy, thereby improving economic and environmental sustainability.

USE OF BARU OIL (Dipteryx alata Vog.) TO PRODUCE BIODIESEL AND STUDY OF THE PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BIODIESEL/PETROLEUM DIESEL FUEL BLENDS

We describe production of methyl and ethyl esters derived from baru oil (Dipteryx alata Vog.). Water and alcohols are removed from the biodiesel obtained by simple distillation. We study the acidity, density, iodine number, viscosity, water content, peroxide number, external appearance, and saponification number of the oil, its methyl and ethyl esters (biodiesels) and their blends (B5, B10, B15, B20, and B30) with commercial diesel fuel.

Production of methyl and ethyl biodiesel fuel from pequi oil (Caryocar brasiliensis Camb.)

We studied the physical and chemical characteristics of methyl and ethyl esters (biodiesel) produced by transesterification of pequi oil (Caryocar brasiliensis Camb.) in the presence of potassium hydroxide. The oil extracted from pequi seed comprises 60% of the fruit content. Such characteristics as density, acidity, viscosity, and carbon residue of the biodiesel meet ANP (Brazilian National Petroleum Agency) standards. Our tests demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing pequi oil for biodiesel production.