Sheath vaporization of a monodisperse fuel-spray jet

The group vaporization of a monodisperse fuel-spray jet discharging into a hot coflowing gaseous stream is investigated for steady flow by numerical and asymptotic methods with a two-continua formulation used for the description of the gas and liquid phases. The jet is assumed to be slender and laminar, as occurs when the Reynolds number is moderately large, so that the boundary-layer form of the conservation equations can be employed in the analysis. Two dimensionless parameters are found to control the flow structure, namely the spray dilution parameter 1, defined as the mass of liquid fuel per unit mass of gas in the spray stream, and the group vaporization parameter e, defined as the ratio of the characteristic time of spray evolution due to droplet vaporization to the characteristic diffusion time across the jet. It is observed that, for the small values of e often encountered in applications, vaporization occurs only in a thin layer separating the spray from the outer droplet-free stream. This regime of sheath vaporization, which is controlled by heat conduction, is amenable to a simplified asymptotic description, independent of ε,in which the location of the vaporization layer is determined numerically as a free boundary in a parabolic problem involving matching of the separate solutions in the external streams, with appropriate jump conditions obtained from analysis of the quasi-steady vaporization front. Separate consideration of dilute and dense sprays, corresponding, respectively, to the asymptotic limits λ<<1 and λ>>1, enables simplified descriptions to be obtained for the different flow variables, including explicit analytic expressions for the spray penetration distance.

Fuel Cells: A Real Option for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Propulsion

The possibility of implementing fuel cell technology in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) propulsion systems is considered. Potential advantages of the Proton Exchange Membrane or Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEMFC) and Direct Methanol Fuel Cells (DMFC), their fuels (hydrogen and methanol), and their storage systems are revised from technical and environmental standpoints. Some operating commercial applications are described. Main constraints for these kinds of fuel cells are analyzed in order to elucidate the viability of future developments. Since the low power density is the main problem of fuel cells, hybridization with electric batteries, necessary in most cases, is also explored.

Marine Practice Guidelines for Fuel Cell Applications

This paper focuses on the implementation of fuel cells in marine systems as a propulsion system and energy source. The objective is to provide an overview of the pertinent legislation for marine applications of fuel cells. This work includes a characterization of some guidelines for the safe application of fuel cell systems on ships. It also describes two ships that have implemented fuel cells to obtain energy, the Viking Lady, the first marine ship to include this technology, and Greentug, a reference for new tugs

Long Term Performance Study of a Direct Methanol Fuel Cell Fed with Alcohol Blends

The use of alcohol blends in direct alcohol fuel cells may be a more environmentally friendly and less toxic alternative to the use of methanol alone in direct methanol fuel cells. This paper assesses the behaviour of a direct methanol fuel cell fed with aqueous methanol, aqueous ethanol and aqueous methanol/ethanol blends in a long term experimental study followed by modelling of polarization curves. Fuel cell performance is seen to decrease as the ethanol content rises, and subsequent operation with aqueous methanol only partly reverts this loss of performance. It seems that the difference in the oxidation rate of these alcohols may not be the only factor affecting fuel cell performance.

Analysis of advanced European nuclear fuel cycle scenarios including transmutation and economic estimates

Four European fuel cycle scenarios involving transmutation options (in coherence with PATEROS and CPESFR EU projects) have been addressed from a point of view of resources utilization and economic estimates. Scenarios include: (i) the current fleet using Light Water Reactor (LWR) technology and open fuel cycle, (ii) full replacement of the initial fleet with Fast Reactors (FR) burning U?Pu MOX fuel, (iii) closed fuel cycle with Minor Actinide (MA) transmutation in a fraction of the FR fleet, and (iv) closed fuel cycle with MA transmutation in dedicated Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS). All scenarios consider an intermediate period of GEN-III+ LWR deployment and they extend for 200 years, looking for long term equilibrium mass flow achievement. The simulations were made using the TR_EVOL code, capable to assess the management of the nuclear mass streams in the scenario as well as economics for the estimation of the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and other costs. Results reveal that all scenarios are feasible according to nuclear resources demand (natural and depleted U, and Pu). Additionally, we have found as expected that the FR scenario reduces considerably the Pu inventory in repositories compared to the reference scenario. The elimination of the LWR MA legacy requires a maximum of 55% fraction (i.e., a peak value of 44 FR units) of the FR fleet dedicated to transmutation (MA in MOX fuel, homogeneous transmutation) or an average of 28 units of ADS plants (i.e., a peak value of 51 ADS units). Regarding the economic analysis, the main usefulness of the provided economic results is for relative comparison of scenarios and breakdown of LCOE contributors rather than provision of absolute values, as technological readiness levels are low for most of the advanced fuel cycle stages. The obtained estimations show an increase of LCOE ? averaged over the whole period ? with respect to the reference open cycle scenario of 20% for Pu management scenario and around 35% for both transmutation scenarios. The main contribution to LCOE is the capital costs of new facilities, quantified between 60% and 69% depending on the scenario. An uncertainty analysis is provided around assumed low and high values of processes and technologies.

Towards a fuel poverty definition for Spain

During the last years, an increasing interest has been developed so as to address the problem of fuel poverty which is already affecting a huge number of European citizens. In 2013, the European Parliament has claimed to the Commission and State Members through several resolutions, the legislative development of policies in order to tackle energy vulnerability of households. In 2000 the UK Government, through the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act, established that a person could be regarded as fuel poor if he is a member of a household that cannot get warmth at a reasonable cost. Nevertheless, in order to establish the incidence of fuel poverty among Spanish households, it must be understood which should be the adequate thresholds for indoor temperatures. The research here presented proposes new indoor temperature thresholds for fuel poor households based on adaptive comfort models.

Fuel poverty as a determinant in energy retrofitting actions

Fuel poverty can be defined as “the inability to afford adequate warmth in the home" and it is the result of the combination of three items: low household income, housing lack of energy efficiency and high energy bills. Although it affects a growing number of households within the European Union only some countries have an official definition for it. In 2013, the European Parliament claimed the Commission and Estate Members to develop different policies in order to fight household energy vulnerability. The importance of tackling fuel poverty is based on the critical consequences it has for human health living below certain temperatures. In Spain some advances have been made in this field but main existing studies remain at the statistical level and do not deepen the understanding of the problem from the perspective of dwelling indoor habitability conditions. What is more, this concept is yet to be officially defined. This paper presents the evaluation of fuel poverty in a building block of social housing located in the centre of Zaragoza and how this issue determined the strategies implemented in the energy retrofitting intervention project. At a first step, fuel poverty was appraised through the exploration of indoor thermal conditions. The adaptive thermal comfort (UNE-EN 15251:2008) method was used to establish the appropriate indoor temperatures and consequently to determine what can be called 'comfort gap'. Results were collated and verified with energy bills collection and a survey work that gathered data from neighbours. All this permitted pointing out those households more in need. Results from the social analysis combined with the evaluation of the building thermal performance determined the intervention. The renovation project was aimed at the implementation of passive strategies that improve households thermal comfort in order to alleviate households fuel poverty situation. This research is part of the project NewSolutions4OldHousing (LIFE10 ENV/ES/439) cofounded by the European Commission under the LIFE+ Programme.

Source terms for calculations of vaporizing and burning fuel sprays with non-unity Lewis numbers in gases with temperature-dependent thermal conductivities

Liquid-fueled burners are used in a number of propulsion devices ranging from internal combustion engines to gas turbines. The structure of spray flames is quite complex and involves a wide range of time and spatial scales in both premixed and non-premixed modes (Williams 1965; Luo et al. 2011). A number of spray-combustion regimes can be observed experimentally in canonical scenarios of practical relevance such as counterflow diffusion flames (Li 1997), as sketched in figure 1, and for which different microscalemodelling strategies are needed. In this study, source terms for the conservation equations are calculated for heating, vaporizing and burning sprays in the single-droplet combustion regime. The present analysis provides extended formulation for source terms, which include non-unity Lewis numbers and variable thermal conductivities.

Sistema de simulación de escenarios de ciclos avanzados de combustible nuclear en transición = Simulation system for advanced fuel cycle transition scenarios

El estudio de los ciclos del combustible nuclear requieren de herramientas computacionales o "códigos" versátiles para dar respuestas al problema multicriterio de evaluar los actuales ciclos o las capacidades de las diferentes estrategias y escenarios con potencial de desarrollo en a nivel nacional, regional o mundial. Por otra parte, la introducción de nuevas tecnologías para reactores y procesos industriales hace que los códigos existentes requieran nuevas capacidades para evaluar la transición del estado actual del ciclo del combustible hacia otros más avanzados y sostenibles. Brevemente, esta tesis se centra en dar respuesta a las principales preguntas, en términos económicos y de recursos, al análisis de escenarios de ciclos de combustible, en particular, para el análisis de los diferentes escenarios del ciclo del combustible de relativa importancia para España y Europa. Para alcanzar este objetivo ha sido necesaria la actualización y el desarrollo de nuevas capacidades del código TR_EVOL (Transition Evolution code). Este trabajo ha sido desarrollado en el Programa de Innovación Nuclear del CIEMAT desde el año 2010. Esta tesis se divide en 6 capítulos. El primer capítulo ofrece una visión general del ciclo de combustible nuclear, sus principales etapas y los diferentes tipos utilizados en la actualidad o en desarrollo para el futuro. Además, se describen las fuentes de material nuclear que podrían ser utilizadas como combustible (uranio y otros). También se puntualizan brevemente una serie de herramientas desarrolladas para el estudio de estos ciclos de combustible nuclear. El capítulo 2 está dirigido a dar una idea básica acerca de los costes involucrados en la generación de electricidad mediante energía nuclear. Aquí se presentan una clasificación de estos costos y sus estimaciones, obtenidas en la bibliografía, y que han sido evaluadas y utilizadas en esta tesis. Se ha incluido también una breve descripción del principal indicador económico utilizado en esta tesis, el “coste nivelado de la electricidad”. El capítulo 3 se centra en la descripción del código de simulación desarrollado para el estudio del ciclo del combustible nuclear, TR_EVOL, que ha sido diseñado para evaluar diferentes opciones de ciclos de combustibles. En particular, pueden ser evaluados las diversos reactores con, posiblemente, diferentes tipos de combustibles y sus instalaciones del ciclo asociadas. El módulo de evaluaciones económica de TR_EVOL ofrece el coste nivelado de la electricidad haciendo uso de las cuatro fuentes principales de información económica y de la salida del balance de masas obtenido de la simulación del ciclo en TR_EVOL. Por otra parte, la estimación de las incertidumbres en los costes también puede ser efectuada por el código. Se ha efectuado un proceso de comprobación cruzada de las funcionalidades del código y se descrine en el Capítulo 4. El proceso se ha aplicado en cuatro etapas de acuerdo con las características más importantes de TR_EVOL, balance de masas, composición isotópica y análisis económico. Así, la primera etapa ha consistido en el balance masas del ciclo de combustible nuclear actual de España. La segunda etapa se ha centrado en la comprobación de la composición isotópica del flujo de masas mediante el la simulación del ciclo del combustible definido en el proyecto CP-ESFR UE. Las dos últimas etapas han tenido como objetivo validar el módulo económico. De este modo, en la tercera etapa han sido evaluados los tres principales costes (financieros, operación y mantenimiento y de combustible) y comparados con los obtenidos por el proyecto ARCAS, omitiendo los costes del fin del ciclo o Back-end, los que han sido evaluado solo en la cuarta etapa, haciendo uso de costes unitarios y parámetros obtenidos a partir de la bibliografía. En el capítulo 5 se analizan dos grupos de opciones del ciclo del combustible nuclear de relevante importancia, en términos económicos y de recursos, para España y Europa. Para el caso español, se han simulado dos grupos de escenarios del ciclo del combustible, incluyendo estrategias de reproceso y extensión de vida de los reactores. Este análisis se ha centrado en explorar las ventajas y desventajas de reprocesado de combustible irradiado en un país con una “relativa” pequeña cantidad de reactores nucleares. Para el grupo de Europa se han tratado cuatro escenarios, incluyendo opciones de transmutación. Los escenarios incluyen los reactores actuales utilizando la tecnología reactor de agua ligera y ciclo abierto, un reemplazo total de los reactores actuales con reactores rápidos que queman combustible U-Pu MOX y dos escenarios del ciclo del combustible con transmutación de actínidos minoritarios en una parte de los reactores rápidos o en sistemas impulsados por aceleradores dedicados a transmutación. Finalmente, el capítulo 6 da las principales conclusiones obtenidas de esta tesis y los trabajos futuros previstos en el campo del análisis de ciclos de combustible nuclear. ABSTRACT The study of the nuclear fuel cycle requires versatile computational tools or “codes” to provide answers to the multicriteria problem of assessing current nuclear fuel cycles or the capabilities of different strategies and scenarios with potential development in a country, region or at world level. Moreover, the introduction of new technologies for reactors and industrial processes makes the existing codes to require new capabilities to assess the transition from current status of the fuel cycle to the more advanced and sustainable ones. Briefly, this thesis is focused in providing answers to the main questions about resources and economics in fuel cycle scenario analyses, in particular for the analysis of different fuel cycle scenarios with relative importance for Spain and Europe. The upgrade and development of new capabilities of the TR_EVOL code (Transition Evolution code) has been necessary to achieve this goal. This work has been developed in the Nuclear Innovation Program at CIEMAT since year 2010. This thesis is divided in 6 chapters. The first one gives an overview of the nuclear fuel cycle, its main stages and types currently used or in development for the future. Besides the sources of nuclear material that could be used as fuel (uranium and others) are also viewed here. A number of tools developed for the study of these nuclear fuel cycles are also briefly described in this chapter. Chapter 2 is aimed to give a basic idea about the cost involved in the electricity generation by means of the nuclear energy. The main classification of these costs and their estimations given by bibliography, which have been evaluated in this thesis, are presented. A brief description of the Levelized Cost of Electricity, the principal economic indicator used in this thesis, has been also included. Chapter 3 is focused on the description of the simulation tool TR_EVOL developed for the study of the nuclear fuel cycle. TR_EVOL has been designed to evaluate different options for the fuel cycle scenario. In particular, diverse nuclear power plants, having possibly different types of fuels and the associated fuel cycle facilities can be assessed. The TR_EVOL module for economic assessments provides the Levelized Cost of Electricity making use of the TR_EVOL mass balance output and four main sources of economic information. Furthermore, uncertainties assessment can be also carried out by the code. A cross checking process of the performance of the code has been accomplished and it is shown in Chapter 4. The process has been applied in four stages according to the most important features of TR_EVOL. Thus, the first stage has involved the mass balance of the current Spanish nuclear fuel cycle. The second stage has been focused in the isotopic composition of the mass flow using the fuel cycle defined in the EU project CP-ESFR. The last two stages have been aimed to validate the economic module. In the third stage, the main three generation costs (financial cost, O&M and fuel cost) have been assessed and compared to those obtained by ARCAS project, omitting the back-end costs. This last cost has been evaluated alone in the fourth stage, making use of some unit cost and parameters obtained from the bibliography. In Chapter 5 two groups of nuclear fuel cycle options with relevant importance for Spain and Europe are analyzed in economic and resources terms. For the Spanish case, two groups of fuel cycle scenarios have been simulated including reprocessing strategies and life extension of the current reactor fleet. This analysis has been focused on exploring the advantages and disadvantages of spent fuel reprocessing in a country with relatively small amount of nuclear power plants. For the European group, four fuel cycle scenarios involving transmutation options have been addressed. Scenarios include the current fleet using Light Water Reactor technology and open fuel cycle, a full replacement of the initial fleet with Fast Reactors burning U-Pu MOX fuel and two fuel cycle scenarios with Minor Actinide transmutation in a fraction of the FR fleet or in dedicated Accelerator Driven Systems. Finally, Chapter 6 gives the main conclusions obtained from this thesis and the future work foreseen in the field of nuclear fuel cycle analysis.

Conceptual design of offshore platform supply vessel based on hybrid diesel generator-fuel cell power plant

Nowadays increasing fuel prices and upcoming pollutant emission regulations are becoming a growing concern for the shipping industry worldwide. While fuel prices will keep rising in future years, the new International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and Sulphur Emissions Control Areas (SECA) regulations will forbid ships to use heavy fuel oils at certain situations. To fulfil with these regulations, the next step in the marine shipping business will comprise the use of cleaner fuels on board as well as developing new propulsion concept. In this work a new conceptual marine propulsion system is developed, based on the integration of diesel generators with fuel cells in a 2850 metric tonne of deadweight platform supply vessel. The efficiency of the two 250 kW methanol-fed Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) system installed on board combined with the hydro dynamically optimized design of the hull of the ship will allow the ship to successfully operate at certain modes of operation while notably reduce the pollutant emissions to the atmosphere. Besides the cogeneration heat obtained from the fuel cell system will be used to answer different heating needs on board the vessel

Desulfurization of pyrolysis fuel produced from waste lube oils, tyres and plastics

Sulphur compounds remaining in petroleum fractions from topping, hydroskimming or deep conversion processes are a growing concern for oil refiners since in the lapse of a few years the sulphur specification for motor fuels has dropped from 500 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg in most European countries. This increasingly stringent regulation has forced refineries to greatly improve their hydrodesulfurization units, increasing the desulfurization rates and thus consuming huge amounts of hydrogen.

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.

Fuel poverty analysis in three spanish autonomous regions. Some retrofitting policy considerations

A person is to be regarded as living ‘in fuel poverty’ if he is a member of a household living on a lower income in a home which cannot be kept warm at a reasonable cost. This situation is mainly triggered by three factors: low household income, lack of energy efficiency and high energy invoices. Some European countries have already made some advantages towards officially defining fuel poverty in their countries. Nevertheless, in Spain only some research has been done and an official definition of the term is yet to come. This research explores the relation among households’ income, energy expenditure and housing stock in three autonomous regions in Spain in order to evaluate the housing stock of the fuel poor as well as to identify those households more in need. The results of the research allow establishing energy retrofitting priorities of existing housing stock as well as identifying current retrofitting policies limitations on order to tackle fuel poverty.

Electrochemical study of platinum deposited by electron beam evaporation for application as fuel cell electrodes

Platinum is the most used catalyst in electrodes for fuel cells due to its high catalytic activity. Polymer electrolyte and direct methanol fuel cells usually include Pt as catalyst in their electrodes. In order to diminish the cost of such electrodes, different Pt deposition methods that permit lowering the metal load whilst maintaining their electroactivity, are being investigated. In this work, the behaviour of electron beam Pt (e-beam Pt) deposited electrodes for fuel cells is studied. Three different Pt loadings have been investigated. The electrochemical behaviour by cyclic voltammetry in H2SO4, HClO4 and in HClO4+MeOH before and after the Pt deposition on carbon cloth has been analysed. The Pt improves the electrochemical properties of the carbon support used. The electrochemical performance of e-beam Pt deposited electrodes was finally studied in a single direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC) and the obtained results indicate that this is a promising and adequate method to prepare fuel cell electrodes.

The role of private sector in development: The relation between public-private investment in infrastructure and agricultural exports in developing countries

Increasing foreign private investment in developing countries explains why the Public-Private Investment (PPI) is becoming a key tool to reach the development goal. This article analyzes the relation between PPI in infrastructure and agricultural exports in developing countries. We use the panel data approach (52 countries and 17 years). Results show that PPI in infrastructure has a positive impact on agricultural exports of developing countries. The impact is greater in developing countries with higher income rates. This suggests that the lower income countries require the intervention of public sector without which private investment cannot help to economic development.