A Multi Criteria Approach For Comparing Alternative 2023 Energy Conversion A

Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Conversion and Management: X

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/energy-conversion-and-management-x
A multi-criteria approach for comparing alternative fuels and energy

systems onboard ships
M. Rivarolo *, S. Piccardo , G.N. Montagna , D. Bellotti
Thermochemical Power Group (TPG), University of Genoa, Via Montallegro 1, 16145 Genoa, Italy
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: This paper aims to present the upgrade of the Helper for Energy Layouts in Maritime applications (HELM)
Alternative fuels software tool, developed by the authors to compare traditional and innovative systems for energy production and
Maritime transportation storage onboard maritime vessels. The algorithm adopts a multi-criteria method and it carries out the analysis on
Energy systems
a large and updated database of market solutions. A wide range of maps is implemented in the tool, correlating
Fuel cells
Multi-criteria analysis
costs, volumes, weights, emissions and fuel environmental hazards with energy demand, applicative scenario and
vessel type. The equations implemented in the software and the algorithm employed to evaluate and compare the
technologies are reported. In this work, four different vessels are investigated, namely: (i) a small sail yacht; (ii) a
small passenger ferry for inland water navigation; (iii) a large cruise ship; (iv) a large container ship. For each
case study, the choice of the best solution is performed, considering the constraints, the inputs and the single
parameters: in all cases, the solution chosen corresponds to the real one installed on board or to a solution that is
going to be installed. It is worth noting that the multi-criteria analysis has a general approach, allowing to give
preliminary information on the best energy system solution, also to comply with the application requirements (i.
e. pollutant emissions in ports and restricted areas).
least 40 % by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70 % by 2050, compared to

2008 [6]. To reach these targets, the introduction of low-carbon fuels
1. Introduction and innovative technologies is mandatory. The replacement of HFO with
liquid natural gas (LNG) fuelled engines is the first step but it is not
It is a matter of fact that CO2 emissions due to anthropogenic ac sufficient [7 8 9]. Thus, other alternative fuels [10], i.e. ammonia (NH3)
tivities have dramatically increased in the last thirty years, up to the and methanol (MeOH) [11], to be used in ICEs also in combination with
record value of 36.8 Gtons in 2022 [1], raising concerns about global other fuels, have been investigated in recent literature [12 13 14].
warming. Electricity and heat production, industry and transport are the As many technologies for both propulsion and energy storage on
most impacting sectors, with 14.6, 9.1 and 8.0 Gtons respectively. The board are commercially achievable and the interest in low-carbon
impact of the maritime sector is significant, with an increase in terms of innovative technologies is growing fast [15 16 17], it is important to
CO2 from 962 Mtons to 1056 Mtons (+9.6 %) from 2012 to 2018 [2]. analyse all the possible solutions to find the most interesting ones taking
Nowadays, almost 99 % of operating maritime vessels adopt the into proper account the vessel type. Therefore, the use of a comparative
Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) technology for propulsion; consid methodology able to manage a large amount of data and parameters
ering the state-of-the-art technology, Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) and Marine becomes fundamental to facilitate the design process.
Diesel Oil (MDO) are the most commonly employed fuels, with a sig Although the interest in maritime sector decarbonisation is widely
nificant impact in terms of CO2 and local pollutants, i.e., NOx, SOx and recognized in the literature and by stakeholders, both in terms of ship
particulate matter [3]. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) building process [18], and ship operative life [19 20], software tools and
has set many regulations in recent years to limit emissions, with the algorithms to perform multi-criteria analysis comparing many energy
creation of many Emission Control Areas (ECAs) for sulphur and nitro solutions for different maritime vessels are still limited. Karaçay et al.
gen oxides (NOx) limitation, in particular in coastal areas [4 5]. IMO performed a comparative analysis between MDO and LNG referred to
also set an initial strategy in 2018 (an updated version will be published tug boats, focusing on techno-economic aspects [21]. Other authors,
in 2023), aiming at reducing CO2 emissions from transport work by at
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Rivarolo).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2023.100460
Received 6 July 2023; Received in revised form 23 September 2023; Accepted 25 September 2023
Available online 27 September 2023
2590-1745/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Rivarolo et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460
Nomenclature IMO International Maritime Organization

LH2 Liquid Hydrogen
Abbreviations Descriptions LNG Liquid Natural Gas
BAT Batteries MDO Marine Diesel Oil
BoP Balance of Plant MeOH Methanol
CH2 Compressed Hydrogen MH Metal Hydrides
CAPEX Capital Expenditures NOx Nitrogen Oxides
DF Dual Fuel OPEX Operational Expenditures
ECAs Emission Control Areas PEMFC Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell
FC Fuel Cell PU Power Unit
FO Fuel Oil REL Relevance
GHG Green House Gases SCR Selective Catalytic Reactor
HELM Helper for Energy Layouts in Maritime applications SOFC Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
HFO Heavy Fuel Oil SOx Sulphur Oxides
ICE Internal Combustion Engine TEU Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units
such as Helgason et al [22] compared many fuels for maritime appli 2. Software & algorithm descriptions
cations (methanol, natural gas and MDO) focusing on the economic
aspects mainly. Priftis et al. [23] applied multi objective optimisation to The HELM software adopts a multi-criteria approach to compare
the design of a single containership, aiming to maximise the capacity different technologies for the onboard energy production, properly
and the stowage ratios and to minimize the EEDI and the overall ship coupling power units and storage systems, including auxiliaries as well.
resistance. Pesce et al. [24] performed a multi-criteria decision analysis As indicated in the algorithm flow chart (shown in Fig. 1), by means of a
to compare different route alternatives in Venice for cruise ships, quite large number of inputs, the software compares the solutions and
considering economic, social and environmental aspects. Aspen et al. assigns a score for each technology and evaluation criteria. These are
[25] applied a stochastic multi-criteria decision analytical approach to defined by means of both maps, which correlates energy requirements
reduce emissions on a Norwegian ferry comparing different energy inputs with key-parameter (or evaluation criteria) values and relevance,
carrier solutions. Iannaccone et al. [26] performed a multi-criteria depending on the Application characters inputs. Once the scoring evalu
analysis based on sustainability KPIs, considering environment, eco ation process is completed, results obtained by single criteria are sum
nomics and safety aspects to compare LNG and MDO based solutions. med, identifying a total score for each solution, and finalizing the
More recently, Zanobetti et al. [27] proposed a multi-criteria sustain comparison analysis.
ability assessment methodology, based on specific indicators addressing Criteria on which the analysis is based are volume, weight, emis
the technological, economic, environmental, and safety performance of sions, both in terms of CO2 and NOx, costs and environmental hazards.
ship power systems. This last criteria was not present in the previous HELM version [31] and
Other example of multi-criteria usage to compare solutions are pre has been added to consider potential harmful fuel effect in case of an
sented in recent literature [28 29 30]. However, based on the authors’ outboard fuel spillage event. It is strongly affected by the fuel typology,
knowledge and wide literature review, the development of multi-criteria thus it represents an important criteria to evaluate the effect of alter
decision supporting tools to compare different energy systems for energy native fuels.
production and storage onboard, comprehensive of the main commer The Environmental Hazard parameter is described through four
cial and pre-commercial solutions, able to evaluate volumes, weights, gauges that provide the potential damage of each fuel. They are split
costs, emissions and environmental hazard at the same time, also into: (i) two gauges whose effects concern the atmosphere; (ii) two
considering ships’ constraints, have not been developed yet. gauges whose effects concern water contamination. Regarding the first
Considering the importance of identifying the best technology solu ones, global warming potential (GWP20), which defines the CO2 emis
tion for energy generation and storage onboard, and the lack of tools sions in a range of 20 years [32], and the gas permanence in the at
which allow one to carry out an overview about this issue, the authors mosphere (gas lifetime), are considered. Water contamination effects
have developed a multi criteria approach software for maritime appli include LD50 and fuel solubility. LD50 is the dosage of a certain sub
cations, named HELM, to meet these objectives comparing different stance which causes the death of 50 % of a test animals group exposed
power units (PU) and considering as many suitable fuels as possible, for 4 h [33] while solubility in water identifies the capability of a sub
relatively with user requests. The HELM approach carries out the tech stance to be dissolved in water, allowing a drop in its concentration
nology comparison through the numerical definition of many relevant within the harmful threshold in a certain time. Concerning the Envi
criteria (key-parameters), with a large database implemented inside the ronmental Hazard parameter, a distinction is made for the different fuels.
software, based on updated market data in terms of energy production Gaseous fuels at ambient conditions mostly affect atmospheric gauges
and storage technologies. (GWP20 and gas lifetime), while liquid fuels, in the same conditions,
The HELM approach was described in a recent publication [31]; have more influence on the gauges affecting water dispersion (LD50 and
however, considering that the approach needs to be further validated on solubility). The only exception is for anhydrous NH3, for which, due
real vessels and considering that different aspects were not taken into both to its high toxicity and solubility in water, both effects are
proper account in the previous version (i.e. influence of ship typology considered.
and constraints, impact of some criteria). In this paper, the authors aim According to Fig. 1, a large number of inputs is required to start the
to present an updated and advanced version of HELM, demonstrating its comparative analysis, divided in two main categories: primary and
potentialities and validating it by mean of four different real vessels, secondary inputs. The first set includes the energy requirements which
already in operation or in advanced design stage. are necessary to define magnitudes used as map inputs. Maps are the
HELM’s core and they allow to link energy inputs with the volume,
weight, cost for each technology component, and emissions for the only
power unit, as Fig. 2 shows.
2
Fig. 1. Algorithm description.
Fig. 2. Description of the input–output relation.
The ICE plot of power – weight is an example of one used plot as a onboard, and relevance for each criteria, according to vessel type,
market analysis result, and it is shown in Fig. 3. navigation route and information obtained from different stakeholders.
Maps have been identified as a result of a wide market data analysis, Relevance are used to weight the different criteria, from a minimum of 1
allowing to build mathematical correlations which best approximate the to a maximum of 5. The previous HELM version left the choice of their
wide available commercial data. Correlations implemented in the soft values to the user; hence, to adopt a more scientific and objective
ware are reported in Tab. 1. approach, the relevance identification is now connected to the second
Secondary inputs are: Vessel Type, Vessel Dimensions, Navigation ary input setting, added for this purpose.
Type and ECAs Permanency. They allow to define both volume Once defined inputs, HELM calculates the score for each key-
threshold, excluding the technologies which require excessive space parameter and technology, as reported in Eq.(1 ). It is worth noting
3
Fig. 3. Of market analysis plot.
that the scoring method has been enhanced to better automize and In order to avoid possible mathematical inconsistencies, previous
standardize the scoring assignation process, compared to the one pre score identification has been modified for some particular cases. It is
sented in the previous version [31]. possible that some key-parameters assume zero value for the best
vbest technology (e.g. CO2 and NOx emissions for PEMFCs). In this case vbesti is
Sij = coeffi ⋅ i ⋅ Ri (1) always equal to zero, while vij can assume both zero or generic value,
vij
depending on the technology analysed. This leads to an undetermined
i-index represents the ith criteria and j-index represents the jth energy form or to a zero score, respectively. Therefore, when both vbesti and vij
system. The numerical comparison is based on the ratio between the are equal to zero, ratio represented in Eq.(1 ), is substituted with its
minimum generic key-parameter value identified for the best technology maximum achievable value (2), while if the only vbesti is zero, the same
(vbest i ) and the generic key-parameter value assumed by the generic ratio is modified as represented in Eq. (3), and a decreasing factor is
( )
technology vij . Relevance (Ri ) for each key-parameter is considered by introduced into the formula.
the software. In order to keep the score value within a more appreciable vbesti ≡ vij = 0 Sij = coeffi ⋅1 ⋅Ri (2)
range, coeffi , depending on the considered criteria, is introduced in Eq.
(1). Volume, weight and cost scores are defined directly from their ab vbest
vbesti = 0; vij ∕
=0 Sij = coeffi ⋅ i ⋅ Decrj ⋅Ri (3)
solute values, while emissions score is identified taking into account CO2 vij
and NOx emission sub-parameters. Therefore, in this case, both CO2 and
NOx scores are evaluated and summed when global emission score is In Eq.(3 ) vbesti represents the minimum value, different to zero, related
calculated. For this difference among the first three key-parameters and to a generic criteria, while Decrj , defined in Eq.(4 ), has been introduced
emissions one, coeff i assumes different values in relation to the criteria. in order to decrease the score adequately from the best technology one.
Concerning environmental hazard score, the same considerations are
Decrj = 1 − (vbesti /maxi ) (4)
valid, since it is based on four sub-parameter (GWP20, fuel solubility in
water, LD50, and fuel lifetime in the atmosphere), as reported in Table 2
The comparison is different for each application and it is performed as a
numerical technique by using the weighted sum multi criteria approach.
Table 2 Therefore, a total score for each technology is calculated as final output
Coefficient values related with considered parameter. through Eq. (5). This process is carried out for each technology system
Key-parameter Sub-parameter Coefficient value and for each criterion involved in the analysis.
(criteria) ∑( )
TotScorej = Sij (5)
Volume – 10 i
Weight – 10
Cost – 10 Following the commonly used design process to investigate energy field
Emissions CO2 Emissions 5
NOx Emissions 5
in the maritime sector, the most useful measures are: weight, volume
Environmental Hazard GWP20 2.5 and cost. To consider the low environmental impact, two criteria are
Solubility in water 2.5 evaluated: emissions (mainly CO2 and NOx) and the environmental
Lifetime 2.5 hazard, in case of fuel outboard spillage. Concerning costs’ calculation,
LD50 2.5
values of both operating expenditures (OPEX) and capital expenditures
4
(CAPEX) are included in the analysis, considering the expected lifetime attractive solution for navigation in restricted areas (i.e ECAs) and ports
for each PUs and tanks. Annual OPEX value is calculated as percentage [41]. This technology requires 99.99 % pure H2, because of the high
of CAPEX in the range 2 – 4 % [34], depending on the technology. platinum catalyst sensitivity towards carbon based impurities. Today,
Lifetime is defined to consider components’ replacement during ship their average lifetime for mobility application is estimated in 7–8 years.
operational life (assumed equal to 30 years). However, components For maritime applications, batteries are coupled with the PEMFC in
replacing is not always feasible, especially for large ship sizes, due to hybrid systems to manage peak loads and to avoid the electrical load
both PU and storage systems’ dimensions and their integration into the power fluctuations being absorbed by the FC, increasing the degradation
ship spaces. In order to replace these systems, relevant interventions level [42 43]. In HELM database, twenty PEMFC products are used to
would be necessary. Thus, in this case, extraordinary maintenance costs build volume, weight and cost maps: the main functions are reported in
are added to standard OPEX. Tab. 1.
The technology solutions currently included are shown in Fig. 4,
which represents the inputs setup HELM interface, including installed 2.1.2. Solid Oxide fuel cells (SOFCs)
power, autonomy, average efficiency for the different solutions, ship Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC) are another potential solution to
type and navigation areas. reduce the environmental impact of maritime sector. SOFCs are usually
fed by natural gas, but different fuels (methanol, biogas, etc.) can be
2.1. Energy solutions used; they work at very high temperature (from 800 to 1,000 ◦ C) and
their electrical efficiency is high (50–60 %) [44], in particular in case of
In order to take into account a wide range of suitable combinations to hybrid systems [45 46]. Also the coupling with ICE for maritime ap
be installed on board, both for the propulsion energy requirements and plications has been recently investigated as well [47]. On the other
for the hotel load, the different technologies in Tab. 3 have been hand, due to high temperatures, they should operate at constant loads to
implemented in the HELM tool starting from solutions already available avoid thermal stress [40] and, for the same reason, they present long
on the market. For each technology, maps are built from the database of start-up time (>2h) [48]. Currently available SOFC modules are char
the commercial products, building the correlations reported in Table 3. acterised by power ranges between 1 kW and about 300 kW, with the
possibility of combining different modules to reach 1 MW power. They
2.1.1. Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) have been tested in maritime prototypes in recent years mainly as
Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFC) are one of the most Auxiliary Propulsion Units with positive results. In HELM, SOFC are
promising solutions to zero pollutant emissions for maritime applica fuelled by liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is the standard solution.
tions, in particular for small and medium size vessels [35]. Currently, Volume and weight maps have been defined from market research
PEMFC market available solutions for maritime applications do not involving the main producers [49 50], while costs and CO2 emissions
exceed 240 kW power [36 37 38 39], although modules can be com and maps have been obtained from recent literature [51 52]. In HELM
bined to reach higher power (1–2 MW). PEMFCs have high efficiency, database, six SOFC products are used to build volume, weight and cost
also at partial loads (between 45 % and 55 %) [40]. As they require pure maps and correlations reported in Tab. 1.
H2 as fuel, they emit only water, thus they are a carbon free solution.
Furthermore, they present low noise and vibrations, making them an
Fig. 4. Input interface of HELM software.
5
Table 3
Energy systems implemented in HELM.
Technology PEMFC SOFC ICE MDO ICE LNG ICE MeOH ICE NH3
Type PU PU PU PU PU PU
N Analysed Manufacturers 10 2 4 4 4 2
N Analysed Products 20 6 139 84 8 2
Technology MH CH2 LH2 LNG MeOH MDO NH3
Type Tank Tank Tank Tank Tank Tank Tank
N Analysed Manufacturers 4 5 2 5 6 6 2
N Analysed Products 21 30 4 30 32 36 8
2.1.3. Internal combustion engines (ICEs) in Table 1.

The ICE is the most common power generator for the maritime
sector, due to the good performance, technological maturity, easiness of 2.2. Metal hydrides (MH)
maintenance, costs and versatility. It provides a large power range from
20 kW up to 80 MW, and it is fed mainly with MDO but also low-carbon Metal hydrides (MH) are metal powders able to store pure H2 in a
or zero carbon fuels can be used with small adjustments. chemical way and release it providing thermal management [66]. The
Maps for ICEs fuelled by MDO have been identified consistently by a advantages of this system are the low operation pressure (max 40[bar])
market analysis involving the main manufacturers [5354 55], while the [67], the low volume and also the powder recyclability; while the main
emission values are obtained from [56]. Selective Catalytic Reactor drawbacks are the weight, the high cost, and the low durability, set at 8
(SCR) is included as well to reduce SOx and NOx emissions under the years. However, weight drawback can be overcome in maritime appli
limits established by IMO. cations thanks to a proper ship design, i.e. storing the hydrogen under
Dual fuel (DF) ICEs are gaining a fair share of the market in view of the keel: in this way, metal hydrides can improve the vessel’s stability.
the possibility of being fed by alternative and conventional fuels. DF
compression ignition ICEs fuelled by LNG and methanol (MeOH) are 2.3. Compressed hydrogen (CH2)
both implemented in HELM. Due to the high LNG autoignition tem
perature, this technology needs a small pilot MDO amount which is able Compressed hydrogen tanks (CH2) are able to store high pressure gas
to start the combustion. The alternative fuel energy amount is defined in from 200 up to 700 [bar] and the manufacture materials can be polymer
percentage as substitution ratio and generally it is about 99 %, therefore or metal. Also, the container film can be in polymer or in aluminium.
this value as default benchmark in HELM for the DF compression igni While metal tanks have been widely used for gas delivery, the polymer
tion ICEs fed by LNG and MDO. LNG-ICE are manufactured as Tier III tank is more recent as its lightness raises high interest, but in both cases a
engines avoiding the SOx/NOx SCR installation [57 58]. The CAPEX good lifetime (20 years) is guaranteed. The most used and available
have been extrapolated from the comparison developed in, assuming an pressure values are 200, 250, 350 and 700 [bar], all the options are
increase of around 5 % compared to a conventional MDO engine [59]. implemented in HELM in order to increase the design comparison ac
Values related to the emissions are obtained from the same reference curacy.The main advantages of CH2 are the relatively low cost and the
used for MDO. durability. While the disadvantage is safety, as the only available posi
MeOH and MDO DF compression ignition ICEs are another possible tion on board can be over the top and with a certain distance from
solution to reduce carbon emissions. This technology is not spread like passenger access.
the previous one, but some applications already exist (i.e. Stena Ger
manica [60]). MeOH needs MDO as pilot fuel, in this case with a sub 2.4. Liquefied hydrogen (LH2)
stitution ratio equal to 95 % [61 62], implemented as default value in
HELM. For this technology only NOx SCR is needed to be compliant with Liquefied hydrogen (LH2) is the storage system in cryogenic condi
Tier III. tions at − 253 ◦ C, with H2 density 71 [kg/m3], significantly higher than
In the case of ICEs fuelled by NH3, spark ignition engines have been CH2 at 700 [bar]. However, a significant amount of energy is necessary
taken into account. This technology foresees the need to enhance com to reach cryogenic temperature and maintain it. The tank has an insu
bustion by means of H2, directly extracted from NH3 in a cracking unit, lation layer to maintain the low temperature and the structure has to be
which has, together with the same NH3, high autoignition temperatures. able to contain the boil-off phenomena [68] but also it needs a dedicated
An NH3 substitution ratio equal to 95 % is assumed [63 64]. Concerning chiller plan. Therefore, the volume system is contained and the dura
emissions only NOx SCR is needed, due to sulphur absence inside NH3 bility is quite long, 20 years as CH2, while the main drawbacks are the
molecule. boil-off management and the cryogenic plant complexity.
More than two hundred and thirty ICE products, mono and DF type
both, are used to build volume, weight and cost maps: the main func 2.4.1. Liquefied natural gas (LNG)
tions are reported in Tab. 1. LNG is an alternative fuel, mainly composed of methane, which
allow one to drastically abate NOx emissions and reduce those of CO2
2.1.4. Hydrogen (H2) [69 70]. LNG is stored under cryogenic conditions (-162 ◦ C) at ambient
To reach the energy transition target, H2 is one of the most promising pressure, so it requires particular storage systems which need to with
fuels for the maritime sector and there are many research projects on the stand particular design standards, the Type-C tanks [71]. LNG Type C
feasibility [65] of the infrastructure and for on board production. It tanks lifetime is 20 years, while Environmental Hazard for this fuel is
presents strong environmental advantages (zero carbon emissions) and defined by atmospheric effect, since it is gaseous at ambient conditions.
high LHV (120 MJ/kg). On the other hand, H2 has low density at In HELM, 30 commercial products are included to build maps and
ambient conditions (0.089 kg/m3), and its volumetric energy density is extrapolate the functions reported in Tab. 1.
low. In terms of safety, it presents a very wide flammability range (4–75
% in air) and very low ignition energy. Since hydrogen is a gas, its 2.4.2. Marine Diesel Oil (MDO)
impact on the environment affects only the air pollution due to its long- MDO is the most employed fuel in the maritime sector thanks to its
duration permanence in the atmosphere. In HELM, the considered high energy density at ambient condition. The storage system is a cyl
storage method are liquid, compressed and metal hydrides, as reported inder able to support the liquid pressure, therefore the volume, weight
6
Table 1
Extrapolated function by the market analysis.
CH2 350 9.98 • Mkg + 21.295 CH2 700 13.601 • Mkg + 6.0688
Volume = 0.058 • Mkg + 0.0098Weight = CAPEX Volume = 0.0404 • Mkg + 0.0059Weigh = CAPEX
bar 1, 000 bar 1, 000
=5 • Vlitres =5 • Vlitres
LNG Volume = 0.0021 • Vlitres + 2.8698Weight = 0.00021 • Vlitres + MeOH Volume = 0.0016 • Vlitres + 2.5732CAPEX = 0.1096 • Vlitres + 2, 313.
3.7497Vlitres < 60, 000 lCAPEX = 5.6324 • Vlitres 60, 000 l ≤ Vlitres ≤ 100, 6Vlitres ≤ 40 lWeight = (0.06 • Vlitres + 855.8)/1, 00040 l < Vlitres < 1,
000 lCAPEX = 1.59 • Vlitres + 254, 104Vlitres > 100, 000 lCAPEX = 500 lWeight = (0.369 • Vlitres + 843.16)/1, 000Vlitres ≥ 1, 500 lWeight =
1.8441 • Vlitres (0.0784 • Vlitres + 1, 279.1)/1, 000
LH2 Volume = 0.023 • Mkg Weight = 10.335 • Mkg CAPEX = 21.255 • Vlitres MDO Vlitres ≤ 26, 000lVolume = 0.001 • Vlitres + 3.0475Weight =
0.0002 • Vlitres + 0.4224CAPEX = 0.3547 • Vlitres + 476.08Vlitres > 26,
000lVolume = 59.32 • log(Vlitres ) − 572Weight = 0.00009 • Vlitres +
Mkg
2.5753 − CAPEX = 33, 453 • log(Vlitres ) − 329, 422
1, 000
MH Volume = 51.217 • MH2 /1000Weight = 112.73 • MH2 /1000MH2 < Li-ion 4.6999 • EBat 6.769 • EBat
Volume = Weight = CAPEX = 0.189 • EBat • 1,
1 kgCAPEX = 7333 • ln(MH2 ) + 24536MH2 > 1 kgCAPEX = Batteries 1, 000 1, 000
10500 • MH2 000
PEMFC PMax < 30 kWVolume = − 0.0071 • Pel,n + 0.5172Weight = SOFC Volume = 0.1035 • Pel,n + 1.4387Weight = 0.0521 • Pel,n + 1.3945PMax <
0.0011 • Pel,n + 0.1393PMax ≥ 30 kWVolume = ( )0,6
1, 000 kWCAPEX = 15, 540 • Pel,n PMax ≥ 1, 000 kWCAPEX = 1, 000 •
0.0091 • Pel,n − 0.1431Weight = 0.0039 • Pel,n − 0.0268PMax < 1, Pel,n CO2 [kg] = 2.75*kgLNG NOx [kg] = 0
( )0,6
000 kWCAPEX = 14, 374 • Pel,n PMax ≥ 1, 000 kWCAPEX = 1, 000 •
Pel,n CO2 [kg] = 0NOx [kg] = 0
ICE - MDO PMax < 3, 500 kWVolume = 2 • 10− 6
• Pel,n 2 + 0.0131 • Pel,n Weight = DF ICE PMax < 3, 500 kWVolume = 2 • 10− 6
• Pel,n 2 + 0.0054 • Pel,n Weight =
2 • 10− 6 • Pel,n 2 + 0.0064 • Pel,n CAPEX = 498.489 • Pel,n + 10, 1393, –MDO & 2 • 10− 6 • Pel,n 2 + 0.0049 • Pel,n 3, 500 ≤ PMax ≤ 4, 100 kWVolume =
500 ≤ PMax ≤ 4, 100 kWVolume = 0.1074 • Pel,n − 303.85Weight = LNG 0.066 • Pel,n − 175Weight = 0.068 • Pel,n − 201.83PMax > 4,
0.1232 • Pel,n − 393.96CAPEX = 435.769 • Pel,n + 228,408PMax > 4, 100 kWVolume = 0.0094 • Pel,n 1.1087 Weight = 0.0021 • Pel,n 1.2631 CO2 [kg] =
100 kWVolume = 0.0329 • Pel,n Weight = 0.0266 • Pel,n CAPEX = 8.4
2.75*kgLNG NOx [kg] = *kgLNG
564.119 • Pel,n − 295, 264CO2 [kg] = 3.206 • kgMDO NOx [kg] = 3.4 • 1, 000
LHVMDO • kgMDO /3.6SOx [kg] = 0.02 • kgMDO • 21/1, 000
DF ICE – PMax < 3, 500 kWVolume = 2 • 10− 6
• Pel,n 2 + 0.011 • Pel,n Weight = DF ICE –H2 PMax < 3, 500 kWVolume = 2 • 10− 6
• Pel,n 2 + 0.011 • Pel,n Weight =
MDO & − 6 2
2 • 10 • Pel,n + 0.0064 • Pel,n PMax > 4, 100 kWVolume = 0.0308 • & NH3 − 6 2
2 • 10 • Pel,n + 0.0064 • Pel,n CAPEX =
MeOH Pel,n Weight = 0.0265 • Pel,n CO2 [kg] = 0.069 • LHVMeOH •
[ ]
1.15 • 409.02 • Pel,n +10, 139 3, 500 ≤ PMax < 4, 100 kWVolume =
kgMeOH NOx [kg] = 0.0004 • LHVMeOH • kgMeOH SOx [kg] = 0.01 • SOx MDO 0.1053 • Pel,n − 303.85Weight = 0.1231 • Pel,n − 393.96CAPEX =
[ ]
1.15 • 346.3 • Pel,n +228, 408 4 , 100 ≤ PMax ≤ 70, 000 kWVolume =
0.0308 • Pel,n − 303.85Weight = 0.0265 • Pel,n − 393.96CAPEX =
[ ]
1.15 • 474.65 • Pel,n − 295, 264 CO2 [kg] = 0NOx [kg] = 3.4/1000 •
LHVMeOH • kgMeOH /3.6
and cost are low. Also the BOP components are common, only in case of vaporization, allows one to reduce boil off rate, limiting technical dif
huge MDO storage, a purification system is needed. On the other hand, ficulties of cryogenic conditions fuel handling. This fuel presents zero
MDO has some disadvantages due to the high emissions and the Envi greenhouse effect and it is highly soluble in water (517 kg/l H2O). On
ronmental Hazard for the sea life (high LD50, not miscible) and therefore, the other hand it is also highly toxic for humans and aquatic life: 300
to comply with the regulations, the storage system requires additional ppm are identified as Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH)
components. In HELM, the SCR impact is considered to reduce the SOx threshold defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administra
and NOx emissions up to the required values. In HELM, 36 commercial tion (OSHA). This feature poses major challenges regarding onboard
products are included to build maps and extrapolate the functions re handling and storage safety. Currently different studies and tests have
ported in Tab. 1. been carried out in view of the interest shown by the maritime sector for
this fuel but no onboard applications are available yet. In HELM, eight
2.4.3. Methanol (MeOH) commercial tanks have been considered.
MeOH is an interesting alternative fuel due to its liquid form at
ambient condition and its energy density, that guarantees a contained 2.4.5. Batteries (BAT)
storage volume and weight, but also reduced emissions and low envi Batteries are electrochemical devices capable of converting chemical
ronmental hazard, indeed it is not lethal and it is completely miscible energy of an electrochemically active material into electrical energy.
[10]. As just told, MeOH is ready to be the fuel of the DF ICE combined Due to the spontaneous discharge reactions, batteries are characterised
with MDO with limited modifies. MeOH main disadvantage is its low by high efficiencies and, moreover, power can be provided very quickly.
energy density compared to MDO, which requires 2–3 times volume to Different battery types are available on the market; one of the best
store the same energy amount. In HELM, more than 30 commercial tanks performing and most employed technology is represented by lithium-ion
from many manufactures have been considered, in a wide capacity range batteries, able to reach high energy densities, about 150 Wh/kg [73] and
(20–35,000 L). 185 Wh/l [74], thus they are commonly used in a large number of
portable electronic devices, energy storage plants and, more recently, in
2.4.4. Ammonia (NH3) automotive and maritime applications. The Lithium-ion battery pack is
NH3 is a carbon free fuel which can be directly used inside ICEs or as implemented in HELM to consider the required hybrid condition of the
H2 carrier. In this case a cracking process needs to be realized [72]. Due fuel cell [75], because batteries allow one to reduce power time response
to its high autoignition temperature and to poor combustion features, a and improve electrical load management [76]. They present a high life
pilot fuel is needed both for compression ignition and spark ignition cycle number of discharge and no memory effect, avoiding the necessity
[13]. The only harmful emission is represented by NOx, due to NH3 of the complete discharge before recharging. On the other hand, main
higher nitrogen content in comparison with previous fuels; therefore, a disadvantages are: high prices, temperature sensibility and possibility of
SCR needs to be installed⋅NH3 is liquid at limited temperatures (− 33 ◦ C ignition. Indeed lithium-ion batteries are subject to a faster degradation,
at atmospheric pressure) which, together with its high latent heat of affecting lifetime and performances, if exposed to extreme temperatures
7
and they can ignite if used in improper way or physically damaged. In this specific case. All the input values are reported in Table 4.
HELM, more than thirty devices by ten productors are considered. The results in terms of scores are shown in Fig. 5: HELM suggests the
internal ICE fuelled by MDO as the best solution, due to the MDO high
3. Results – Case studies and helm validation energy density, its storage simplicity and high maturity. This technology
allows one to have a simple storage system having low values for vol
As described in Section 2, the algorithm presented in [31] has been ume, weight and cost and especially for a small vessel without a fuel pre-
upgraded to have an updated version of the HELM software, able to treatment system. Indeed, the high score of ICE-MDO technology is
perform a more complete analysis. More in detail, the main novelties mainly driven by the volume score, due to the high REL on volume for
are: this case study (Tab. 4). However, CO2 and NOx emissions are high for
the ICE-MDO (Tab. 5). PEMFC fuelled by H2 is an interesting alternative
• Implementation of the Environmental Hazard criteria in case of solution, since their emissions are zero and the environmental aspect
outboard fuel spillage assumes high relevance in this scenario. However, hydrogen storage
• Scientific approach for the Relevance, thanks to the implementation onboard requires much more space and they are characterised by
of secondary inputs related to vessel important weights and costs, compared to ICE-MDO, in particular in
• Volume Threshold implementation linked with “Vessel Dimensions” case of MH storage system (Table 5). The PEMFC fuelled by LH2 presents
user input a good score, however the storage systems are cryogenic to keep the fuel
• Introduction of batteries to simulate hybrid systems (i.e. fuel cells + in liquid form at − 253 ◦ C, and the management is very complex for this
batteries) application; the other technology solutions have lower scores. Thus, the
best alternative to ICE-MDO results PEMFC with CH2 at 350 [bar].
However, in light to the HELM apported improvements, it is
mandatory to perform a software validation, by means of different 3.2. Passenger ferry for inland navigation
already existing case studies.
HELM approach can be employed for different kinds of vessels and The interest in inland navigation is high, due to the relevant impact
mission profiles: in this section, several case studies are presented and of the pollution in these areas where the water has low recirculation and
discussed. More in detail, the software is applied to a sail yacht, a pas the number of commercial/touristic vessels are high. In this framework,
senger ferry, a cruise ship and a container ship, characterised by strong the EC has recently launched the RH2IWER project [78] to accelerate
differences in terms of maximum power, mission profile, navigation the adoption of hydrogen fuel cell powered vessels in inland waterway
areas and frequency: the results obtained throughout HELM are transport, considering several case studies on rivers and the replicability
compared with real solutions installed on board for the case studies to on Italian lakes. In this framework, the Lake Maggiore scenario in Italy is
obtain a validation of the software reliability. analysed and the Tonale ferry boat is considered. The vessel has 54.4
[m] of length over all and with a beam of 10.8 [m], it can host nearly
1000 people. It is equipped with two propellers and two main engines
3.1. Sail yacht
that provide nearly 600 [kW] with traditional MDO engines. One of the
project’s aims is to consider the retrofitting, installing a similar PEMFC
The first case study is based on the energy characteristics of a sailing
power, with hydrogen stored in compressed tanks at 350 bar. The main
yacht for cruise and race mainly designed for the Mediterranean Sea, the
data are reported in Table 6.
Pelotari [77] project launched in April 2019. It is 20 m long, about 5 m
To set the inputs for the analysis, the route typology and the activity
wide, its upwind sail plane has an area of 152 m2 and it is equipped with
period have been investigated to define the number of operational hours
a 30 kW diesel ICE, but the builder shipyard aims to design a similar
and the navigation frequency. This kind of vessels are characterised by
yacht fully carbon-free and powered by hybrid system with PEMFC and
short routes (a few hours at low speed) and are active mainly from
BAT with MH for H2 storage onboard.
March to October (7 months per year). The passenger ferry is a ship with
To carry out the analysis, a study of the operative profile has been
a pay load characterised by the passengers, it needs availability in terms
done and for this kind of vessel a required power of 30 kW provided for
of space, while the weight influence is lower, hence the REL values of
10 h was considered; the vessel is generally employed for coastal navi
these two parameters for the pax ferry are chosen as medium and low,
gation in summer season only, thus with low frequency during the year.
respectively. Since it operates for tourism in protected areas, the emis
Furthermore, a pressure value of 350 bar is assumed for CH2. As far as
sions have maximum importance, while the cost relevance is minimum
Fuel Cell system is concerned, a BAT contribution for the energy unit is
as this kind of solution is investigated mainly in research funded
assumed equal to 15 %.
projects.
Since this yacht is a leisure craft and generally operates close to the
For passenger Ferry case study, used for inland navigation, (Fig. 6),
coast or in protected areas, special attention is considered for emission
PEMFC fuelled by LH2 or CH2 and hybridized by Li-ion batteries,
reductions and environmental protection (5/5). Volume relevance is
covering 15 % of total energy, are the best technologies, obtaining very
also high (4/5) since the main propulsion unit is given by the sails and
close scores. This technology obtains the highest score in terms of
the motor is an auxiliary system, therefore the engine room must have a
emissions, due to the total absence of CO2 and NOx. On the other hand,
limited volume. Weights (3/5) and costs (2/5) have a lower impact in
the main disadvantages are the high values of cost, mainly for the PU,
and volume, because the PEMFC needs a BAT pack which increases the
Table 4
system’s required space.
Sail Yacht characteristics & relevance.
Also ICE fuelled by LNG (with MDO as pilot) shows good results. LNG
Vessel Type Sail Yacht ECAs Navigation < 50 % is characterized by higher energy density in comparison with all
Frequency
hydrogen solutions, obtaining consequently higher score in terms of
Lbp 20 m Navigation Low volume. Due to the higher density of LNG, the low weight score, and the
Frequency
storage size, deriving from energy inputs, differences in weight score are
B 5.3 m Cost REL. 2/5
H 3m Vol. REL. 4/5 not appreciable with LH2 and CH2 solutions. Furthermore, LNG tech
Max. Power 30 kW Wgt. REL. 3/5 nology has a low value of NOx and the costs are limited, therefore, good
Operational hours 10 h CO2 REL. 5/5 emission and cost scores are reached by this solution. Table 7 reports
BAT Energy (FC) 15 % NOx REL. 5/5 three best technologies absolute values.
Navigation Type Coastal Env. Haz. REL. 5/5
Through the HELM evaluation it is possible to affirm that PEMCs
8
Fig. 5. Sail Yacht scores in HELM.
fuelled by CH2 can be considered the best technology solution in a real

Table 5
on board installation scenario. This is because LH2, which is stored at
Sail Yacht: Volume, Weight, Cost and Emissions values of the four best solutions.
very low temperature, needs to be coupled with a boil off gas manage
System ICE PEMFC PEMFC PEMFC ment system, capable of reliquefying evaporated hydrogen. This implies
MDO LH2 CH2 MH
an auxiliary system installation, too complicated in the management for
Storage volume [m3] 0.16 0.61 0.9 0.86 this kind of application. In light of this practical consideration, HELM
PU volume [m3] 0.39 0.3 0.3 0.3 confirms the choice carried out in the RH2IWER project to be imple
BAT volume [m3] – 0.74 0.74 0.74
Fuel weight [kg] 77 20 15 15
mented on board.
Storage weight [kg] 51 249 174 2,691 To carry out sensitivity analysis, it is also possible to compare the
PU weight [kg] 194 172 172 172 different solutions in the same scenario, exploring a range of different
BAT weight [kg] – 450 450 450 peak powers and fuel storage duration, within variable ranges. For this
Storage Cost [k$] 3.04 17.1 6.71 637
kind of analysis, the power and autonomy ranges are an additional input
PU Cost [k$] 76.5 531 531 531
BAT Cost [k$] – 34.4 34.4 34.4 set by the user. For this application, as Fig. 7 shows, PEMFCs fuelled by
CO2 emissions [kg/ 247 – – – hydrogen are the best solution for limited autonomy range, typical of
mission] inland water navigation with daily refuelling, while ICE solutions are
NOx emissions* [kg/ 2.91 – – – more competitive in case of higher required autonomies (i.e. 3–4 days
mission]
without refuelling), due to high volumes required for H2 storage on
* NOx emissions reported values consider SCR abatement. board. This result confirms that hydrogen vessels are a viable solution
only in case of limited routes and powers, typical of touristic and small
passenger boats.
Table 6
Passenger Ferry characteristics & relevance.
Vessel Type Pax Ferry ECAs Navigation < 50 % 3.3. Cruise ship
Frequency
Lbp 54.4 m Navigation Medium This case study considers a large cruise ship currently in operation
Frequency and belonging to the Italian company “Costa Crociere”. It has a length
B 10.8 m Cost REL. 1/5 between perpendicular of about 325 m, a beam equal to 42 m and it can
H 2.9 m Vol. REL. 3/5 accommodate more than 6,500 passengers. This ship is currently pow
Max. Power 600 kW Wgt. REL. 2/5
Operational hours 6h CO2 REL. 5/5
ered by LNG through four DF ICEs capable of providing a maximum
BAT Energy (FC) 15 % NOx REL. 5/5 power of 15,440 kW each. To demonstrate the HELM different fields of
Navigation Type Inland Env. Haz. REL. 5/5 application, two scenarios are taken into account for this case study. The
first analysis is based on the maximum installed power in order to
evaluate the best solution capable of also guaranteeing redundancies,
while, for the second analysis, only hotel loads in a port stop scenario are
considered. In this case just one PU, working at a reduced load, is used.
9
Fig. 6. Passenger Ferry Score in HELM.
Table 7
Pax Ferry Volume, Weight, Cost and Emissions values of the three best solutions.
SYSTEM PEMFC PEMFC CH2 ICE MDO-LNG
LH2
Storage volume [m3] 5.69 10.7 6.53

PU volume [m3] 5.32 5.32 3.96
BAT volume [m3] 2.54 2.54 –
Fuel weight [tons] 0.24 0.18 0.79
Storage weight [tons] 2.53 1.85 4.13
PU weight [tons] 2.31 2.31 3.66
BAT weight [tons] 3.66 3.66 –
Storage Cost [k$] 184 73.1 27.9
PU Cost [k$] 3,204 3,204 959
BAT Cost [k$] 413 413 –
CO2 emissions [kg/mission] – – 2,145
NOx emissions [kg/mission] – – 6.55
The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the possibility to compare different

technology solutions capable of providing the required power, flanking
the conventional generators.
Fig. 7. Pax Ferry, technologies analysis 3D maps.
3.3.1. Max power & energy

In this case a maximum power equal to 61.76 MW, provided for 175 operate to produce profit (cost relevance set to 4/5), it is inconvenient to
h, is considered. For FC technologies, 20 % of energy is assumed to be keep them still for long periods; furthermore, also during harbour stops,
provided by batteries. This ship operates mainly in national water areas PU are active to provide hotel loads. In view of these considerations,
where emissions would have a moderate relevance; on the other hand, navigation frequency is set on a heavy duty scenario. It is worth noting
cruise ships stop frequently in ports and near protected marine areas; for that, for this type of vessel, the need for space saving is more important
this case study, the possibility of navigating inside ECA, where NOx than weight constraint, therefore REL are set equal to 4/5 and 2/5,
emission are strictly limited, is taken into account. Based on these respectively (Table 8).
evaluations, NOx emissions, CO2 emissions and potential hazards in case FC technologies largely exceed the currently market available gen
of outboard fuel spillage have been assumed as very important issues, erators’ maximum power threshold, also considering the installation of
identifying the maximum value for NOx and environmental hazards more commercial products in parallel. Furthermore, in case of
REL. As far as navigation frequency input is concerned, cruise ships hydrogen-based solutions (PEMFC), the necessary volume would exceed
10
Table 8 (-162 ◦ C). This entails the employment of more costly, voluminous and
Cruise Ship propulsion analysis characteristics & relevance. heavy storage systems (e.g Type C tanks) which require an insulation
Vessel Type Cruise Ship ECAs Navigation > 50 % layer, but also particular design and materials. A great advantage of LNG
Frequency is related to NOx emissions which can be drastically reduced in com
Lbp 325 m Navigation Heavy parison with MDO. However, LNG allows for lower emissions in terms of
Frequency both CO2 and NOx, thus DF ICE fuelled by LNG obtains a score com
B 42 m Cost REL. 4/5 parable with the previous technology. Also DF ICE fuelled by MeOH
H 18 m Vol. REL. 4/5 obtains good scores. MeOH energy density is lower than both LNG and
Max. Power 61,760 kW Wgt. REL. 2/5
Operational hours 175 h CO2 REL. 4/5
MDO energy densities, thus a larger fuel amount is needed. On the other
BAT Energy (FC) 20 % NOx REL. 5/5 hand, MeOH does not require any particular storage system because it is
Navigation Type National Env. Haz. REL. 5/5 liquid at ambient conditions, like MDO. For these reasons, it obtains
volume, weight and cost scores comparable with LNG, in confirmation of
the interest nourished towards this fuel in the near future. If spilled
the available space onboard, due to the high fuel amount needed to
outboard, MeOH can be considered less dangerous for the environment
provide energy requirements. Thus, only ICEs technologies are analysed
in comparison with other fuels thanks to its high solubility in water
more in detail.
which allows to rapidly reduce concentrations under the LT50
Fig. 8 shows that the maximum score is obtained by ICE fuelled by
threshold. The last solution is represented by DF ICE fuelled by a
MDO. This is due to technical reasons, related mainly to the fuel and its
blending of NH3 and H2, directly extracted from ammonia through a
storage system. If the PU are comparable in terms of volume, weight and
cracking process. This requires the installation of a cracking reactor on
cost, storage systems and their dimensions have the highest impact on
board, increasing total weight, volume and cost. Ammonia energy
the total score. As shown in Fig. 8, MDO is characterized by high energy
density is comparable with methanol one, but it needs to be stored at
density, therefore a lower fuel amount is needed to provide the required
–33 ◦ C (at ambient pressure). Ammonia environmental hazards score is
energy in comparison with other solutions. Furthermore, since it is
negatively affected by its very high toxicity for humans and marine
liquid at ambient temperature and pressure, it can be stored in structural
species, mitigated by high solubility in water, which rapidly reduces
tanks. Thus, maximum scores on weight, volume and cost are achieved
concentrations, and its harmlessness for atmosphere (NH3 has zero
with this solution. On the other hand, it obtains low NOx and CO2
GWP). At present, this solution is less promising than the others for this
emission scores, due to the high pollutant amounts, and it is also very
application, however it is worth noting that it presents zero carbon
dangerous for marine species in case of outboard spillage. The best
emissions, leading to maximum score in terms of CO2 emissions.
alternative is represented by DF ICE fuelled by LNG, which is the solu
Fig. 9 compares the absolute values of volumes, weights and costs for
tion installed on board this cruise ship. This condition is justified mainly
the three best solutions. From the volume standpoint, ICE-MDO is the
by the higher amount of LNG needed to satisfy the energy demand, the
best, as the other two technologies require a significant amount of space
necessity to consider a small pilot fuel amount, and the more complex
for storage system (nearly 80 % of the total for both LNG and MeOH),
storage system. Indeed, LNG is stored under cryogenic conditions
which leads to a total required space twice as high compared to MDO.
Fig. 8. Cruise ship, max power score graph.
11
Fig. 9. Comparison between MDO, MDO-MeOH and MDO-LNG technologies results.
The PU volume is similar, in case of MDO it is slightly higher due to the market for the required size, as HELM indicates. Differently to the pre
exhaust gas treatment (i.e. scrubber) to comply with NOx limits. vious scenario, due to the emissions issue and to lower energy require
ment, MDO (total score = 76) and MeOH (total score = 88) are not
3.3.2. Harbour mode analysis – Analysis on one engine power worthy solutions for this analysis. Although LNG obtains a lower score in
For this mission, maximum power is nearly 7 MW, provided for 10 h. comparison with H2 solutions, this solution represents best currently
To simulate this scenario some user inputs are modified compared to the available technology for large cruise ships, since, matching the
previous analysis. Navigation frequency is set on a medium duty sce maximum power and the hotel load scenarios, LNG is able to satisfy in a
nario because, considering only one generator capable to provide hotel good way the ship’s global energy requirements, considering both open
load during harbour stops, this one will not be used continuously sea navigation and permanence in harbour. Thus, also for this case
throughout overall cruise mission. Furthermore, to model port stay, study, the solution provided by HELM corresponds to the one installed
inland navigation in ECAs is considered, thus relevance for environ on board.
mental parameters is maximum. Cost relevance is set equal to 1, justified
by the moderate generator size needed to satisfy the energy demand. 3.4. Container ship
Other relevance parameters remain the same already set for maximum
power scenario. Input data are resumed in Table 9. Another large size case study is represented by a container ship
The output interface (Fig. 10) shows that PEMFC and SOFC exceed managed by DANAOS. Built in 2009, ZIM LUANDA has an overall length
the currently market available generators maximum power threshold, equal to 260.05 m, a beam of about 32.25 m and its container capacity is
however, differently to the previous analysis, they don’t exceed volume equal to 4,253 TEU. It is powered by MAN engine fuelled by MDO with a
threshold, due to the lower energy requirements. Although PEMFC power capacity of 37 MW. Furthermore, this ship represents a demo
fuelled by LH2 and CH2 obtain very high scores, demonstrating the vessel for the ENGIMMONIA European project, justifying a reduced
interest for such technologies in the near future to satisfy hotel load with relevance cost.
particular focus on pollutant emission. For this reason, in view of con Available fuel oil storage volume is sufficient to guarantee one
crete future application also PEMFC fuelled by LH2 and CH2 are month of autonomy working at the maximum power and considering
investigated in more detail. engines efficiency as 50 %. A one-week mission is analysed, corre
As reported in Fig. 11, the best solution would be PEMFC fuelled by sponding to the Athens (Greece) – Barcelona (Spain) route, in Mediter
LH2 and CH2. Hydrogen technologies obtain maximum emissions score ranean Sea. This kind of mission, typically carried out from large
and, due to the more stringent emissions requirements, they would be container vessels, implies permanence in deep sea condition, outside
very good for port stops only, overtaking the LNG solution. However, it ECAs, with minimum emissions relevance and moderate relevance on
must be outlined that, at present, these solutions are not available on the environmental hazard. Cargo transported by this type of vessel is clas
sified as modular cargo for which volume is the most important
(maximum relevance), while weight is not critical (Table 10).
Table 9
As Fig. 12 shows, this case study is characterized by a high ICE - MDO
Cruise ship harbour analysis characteristics & relevance.
score which widely overcome other solutions. This is due to the very
Vessel Type Cruise Ship ECAs Navigation > 50 % high energy requirements together with important volume and cost
Frequency
relevance and not strict requirements about emissions. This scenario
Lbp 325 m Navigation Medium leads to a penalization of alternative fuels which present a lower energy
Frequency
density, and therefore larger fuel amount to provide the same energy
B 42 m Cost REL. 1/5
H 18 m Vol. REL. 4/5 value, not balanced by emissions benefits. As for the cruise ship case, FC
Max. Power 7,000 kW Wgt. REL. 2/5 technologies cannot be considered. From the results obtained consid
Operational hours 10 h CO2 REL. 5/5 ering a reduced mission duration, if the total autonomy was taken into
BAT Energy (FC) 15 % NOx REL. 5/5 account, gap between ICE – MDO solution and alternative fuels would be
Navigation Type Inland Env. Haz. REL. 5/5
increased underlining the confirmation of MDO as best technology
12
Fig. 10. Cruise ship, harbour score tool capture.
Fig. 11. Cruise ship harbour score graph.
13
Table 10 and each technology solution, the different parameters have been
Container ship characteristics & relevance. evaluated and scores have been attributed to each solution considering
Vessel Type Container Ship ECAs Navigation < 50 % the constraints, the inputs and the single parameters. The tool provides
Frequency also results in absolute terms, giving important indications in terms of
Lbp 260.05 m Navigation Heavy expected weights, volumes, costs and emissions for all the investigated
Frequency technology combinations.
B 32.25 m Cost REL. 3/5 The main results for each case study can be summarised as follows:
H 19.30 m Vol. REL. 5/5
Max. Power 37,000 kW Wgt. REL. 2/5
Operational hours 168 h CO2 REL. 1/5
• Sail yacht: the highest score solution resulted in ICE-MDO solution.
BAT Energy (FC) 15 % NOx REL. 1/5 Despite the high relevance on the emissions due to the typical costal
Navigation Type Deep Env. Haz. REL. 3/5 navigation area, the ICE-MDO solution resulted the best thank the
high score on volume and weight that for such type of vessel is for
surely crucial.
solution for this type of vessels.
• Pax ferry for inland water navigation: considering the peculiarity of
the navigation route and the strict environmental regulations, the
4. Conclusions best score solution resulted in PEMFC + LH2 followed by PEMFC +
CH2.
The present paper reported an upgrade of the Helper for Energy • Cruise ship: in this case it is possible to identify two optimal solu
Layouts in Maritime applications (HELM) software tool, already devel tions, depending on the scenario: considering the relatively long
oped by the authors and a validation of the tool by investigating four duration of the navigation, the fuel range and therefore the amount
different case studies. of volume required by the fuel storage is crucial. In this sense, for the
The HELM tool has been developed to compare traditional and navigation phase, the ICE + MDO resulted the best solution, followed
innovative systems for energy production and storage onboard maritime by the ICE + LNG. On the other hand, during the docking phase in the
vessels. It is based on a large and updated database of market solutions harbour, the environmental impact of the ship needs to be taken into
and a wide range of maps correlating costs, volumes, weights, emissions account. For this reason and in this case, the optimal solution would
and fuel environmental hazards with energy demand, applicative sce result in PEMFC system + H2 storage, followed by the ICE + LNG. As
nario and vessel’s typology. The algorithm adopts a multi-criteria conclusion, the optimal compromise solution is represented by the
method to carry out the analysis and compare the solutions for the ICE fuelled with LNG
different case studies. For each considered parameter (i.e. volume, • Container ship: this case is characterised by a very long navigation
weight, cost, emissions, etc) the tool attributes a score based on the route and therefore the fuel range together with the fuel storage
technology and the vessel considered and the final total score is the sum volume are the most critical parameters. While, the pollutant emis
of all the items. The higher the final score, the better the solution. In this sions, especially in protected areas are of less relevance. For these
work, four different vessels (a small sail yacht; a small passenger ferry reasons, the traditional ICE + MDO solution still results by far the
for inland navigation; a large cruise ship and a large container ship) most suitable.
were evaluated. For each of them, a range of different solutions for the
onboard energy system were investigated (i.e. PEMFC with liquid, In all cases, the chosen solution corresponds to the real one installed
compressed or MH stored hydrogen, SOFC with LNG, ICE fuelled by on board or to a solution that is going to be installed. In particular, the
MDO, MEOH, LNG, NH3, or a combination of them). For each case study
Fig. 12. Container ship score graph.
14
ICE + fossil fuel results to be the best solution in most of the cases in real CONTROL OF EMISSION OF NITROGEN OXIDES FROM MARINE DIESEL ENGINES
(NOx TECHNICAL CODE 2008) (Electronic Record Books and Certification
applications, mostly for economic and technology maturity reasons. This
requirements for SCR systems),” 2019.
validates the tool results and confirms that the evaluation algorithm is [5] International Maritime Organization (IMO), “RESOLUTION MEPC.320(74) 2019
well structured, being able to replicate and confirm the real decision GUIDELINES FOR CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 0.50% SULPHUR
process. The added value of the HELM tool is the possibility to simulate LIMIT UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.cim
ac.com/cms/upload/workinggroups/WG7/CIMAC_WG7_2015_01_Guideline_Cold.
and evaluate the optimal solution also in alternative scenarios in which [6] International Maritime Organization (IMO), “INITIAL IMO STRATEGY ON
the economic impact leaves the place to other priority aspects, such as REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS,” 2018. [Online]. Available:
the environmental one. A sensitivity analysis was also carried out to http://www.imo.org.
[7] Ouyang T, Tan J, Xie S, Wu W, Su Z. A new scheme for large marine vessels LNG
compare the different solutions in terms of maximum required power cold energy utilization from thermodynamic and thermoeconomic viewpoints.
and operational hours. These two parameters are correlated to the sys Energy Convers Manag Feb. 2021;229:113770. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
tem efficiency and the available volume for fuel storage. The analysis ENCONMAN.2020.113770.
[8] Armellini A, Daniotti S, Pinamonti P, Reini M. Evaluation of gas turbines as
showed how the H2-based solutions can reach the highst score in case of alternative energy production systems for a large cruise ship to meet new maritime
small ships (low power) and limited routes. Instead, for large ships and regulations. Appl. Energy Feb. 2018;211:306–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
long routes, the traditional solutions seem still to be the optimal ones APENERGY.2017.11.057.
[9] Al-Enazi A, Bicer Y, Okonkwo EC, Al-Ansari T. Evaluating the utilisation of clean
due to the strong constrains related to the required volume for the fuel fuels in maritime applications: A techno-economic supply chain optimization. Fuel
storage. This to the detriment of the environmental sustainability of this Aug. 2022;322:124195. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUEL.2022.124195.
solution. [10] DNV GL, “Assessment of selected alternative fuels and technologies maritime
Assessment of selected alternative fuels and technologies DNV GL-Maritime 1,”
It is worth noting that the multi-criteria analysis has a general
2018.
approach, allowing to give preliminary information on the best energy [11] M. Mikulski, “Public final report-Methanol as an alternative fuel for vessels,” 2018.
system solution, also to comply with the application requirements (i.e. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322854738_Public_final_report-
pollutant emissions in ports and restricted areas). HELM can be used for Methanol_as_an_alternative_fuel_for_vessels (accessed Jun. 13, 2023).
[12] Balcombe P, et al. How to decarbonise international shipping: Options for fuels,
many design approaches, either for a new ship project or for already technologies and policies. Energy Convers Manag Feb. 2019;182:72–88. https://
existing ships retrofit; moreover, the database can be easily extended to doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2018.12.080.
further energy generation and storage technologies. [13] Li J, Zhang R, Pan J, Wei H, Shu G, Chen L. Ammonia and hydrogen blending
effects on combustion stabilities in optical SI engines. Energy Convers Manag Mar.
2023;280:116827. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2023.116827.
CRediT authorship contribution statement [14] Bellotti D, Rivarolo M, Magistri L. A comparative techno-economic and sensitivity
analysis of Power-to-X processes from different energy sources. Energy Convers
Manag May 2022;260:115565. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
M. Rivarolo: Methodology, Supervision. S. Piccardo: Data curation, ENCONMAN.2022.115565.
Software, Writing – original draft. G.N. Montagna: Data curation, [15] Watanabe MDB, Hu X, Ballal V, Cavalett O, Cherubini F. Climate change mitigation
Software, Writing – original draft. D. Bellotti: Supervision. potentials of on grid-connected Power-to-X fuels and advanced biofuels for the
European maritime transport. Energy Conversion and Management: X Oct. 2023;
20:100418. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECMX.2023.100418.
[16] Ampah JD, Yusuf AA, Afrane S, Jin C, Liu H. Reviewing two decades of cleaner
Declaration of Competing Interest alternative marine fuels: Towards IMO’s decarbonization of the maritime transport
sector. J. Clean. Prod. Oct. 2021;320:128871. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial JCLEPRO.2021.128871.
[17] Zis TPV, Psaraftis HN, Tillig F, Ringsberg JW. Decarbonizing maritime transport: A
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Ro-Pax case study. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. Dec. 2020;37:100565. https://doi.
the work reported in this paper. org/10.1016/J.RTBM.2020.100565.
[18] Vakili S, Schönborn A, Ölçer AI. The road to zero emission shipbuilding Industry: A
Data availability systematic and transdisciplinary approach to modern multi-energy shipyards.
Energy Conversion and Management: X Apr. 2023;18:100365. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ECMX.2023.100365.
Data will be made available on request. [19] Abu Bakar NN, Bazmohammadi N, Vasquez JC, Guerrero JM. Electrification of
onshore power systems in maritime transportation towards decarbonization of
ports: A review of the cold ironing technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. May
Acknowledgments 2023;178:113243. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2023.113243.
[20] Ng MW, Talley WK. Decarbonizing the maritime industry with analytics. Transp
Res D Transp Environ Apr. 2021;93:102755. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENGIMMONIA project has received funding from the European
TRD.2021.102755.
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant [21] Karaçay ÖE, Özsoysal OA. Techno-economic investigation of alternative propulsion
agreement N◦ 955413. Disclaimer excluding Agency responsibility. The systems for tugboats. Energy Conversion and Management: X Dec. 2021;12:
information and views set out in this website are those of the authors and 100140. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECMX.2021.100140.
[22] Helgason R, Cook D, Davíðsdóttir B. An evaluation of the cost-competitiveness of
do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. maritime fuels – a comparison of heavy fuel oil and methanol (renewable and
Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person natural gas) in Iceland. Sustain Prod Consum Jul. 2020;23:236–48. https://doi.
acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be org/10.1016/J.SPC.2020.06.007.
[23] Priftis A, Boulougouris E, Turan O, Papanikolaou A. Parametric design and multi-
made of the information contained therein. RH2IWER project is sup objective optimisation of containerships. Ocean Eng. May 2018;156:347–57.
ported by the Clean Hydrogen Partnership and its members Hydrogen https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCEANENG.2018.02.062.
Europe and Hydrogen Europe Research (grant agreement N. [24] Pesce M, et al. Selecting sustainable alternatives for cruise ships in Venice using
multi-criteria decision analysis. Sci. Total Environ. Nov. 2018;642:668–78. https://
101101358). Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.05.372.
expressed are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily [25] Aspen DM, Sparrevik M. Evaluating alternative energy carriers in ferry
reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the transportation using a stochastic multi-criteria decision analysis approach. Transp
Res D Transp Environ Sep. 2020;86:102383. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
granting authority can be held responsible for them.
TRD.2020.102383.
[26] Iannaccone T, Landucci G, Tugnoli A, Salzano E, Cozzani V. Sustainability of cruise
References ship fuel systems: Comparison among LNG and diesel technologies. J. Clean. Prod.
Jul. 2020;260:121069. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.121069.
[27] Zanobetti F, Pio G, Jafarzadeh S, Muñoz Ortiz M, Cozzani V. Decarbonization of
[1] International Energy Agency (IEA), “International Energy Agency (IEA) official
maritime transport: Sustainability assessment of alternative power systems.
website.” https://www.iea.org/statistics/ (accessed Apr. 04, 2022).
J. Clean. Prod. Sep. 2023;417:137989. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[2] Det Norske Veritas (DNV), “MARITIME FORECAST TO 2050,” 2020.
JCLEPRO.2023.137989.
[3] International Maritime Organization (IMO), “MARPOL ANNEX VI AND NTC 2008
[28] Chauvy R, Lepore R, Fortemps P, De Weireld G. Comparison of multi-criteria
Resolution Amends Date of entry into force,” 2020.
decision-analysis methods for selecting carbon dioxide utilization products. Sustain
[4] International Maritime Organization (IMO), “RESOLUTION MEPC.317(74)
Prod Consum Oct. 2020;24:194–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SPC.2020.07.002.
(adopted on 17 May 2019) AMENDMENTS TO THE TECHNICAL CODE ON
15
[29] Baumann M, Weil M, Peters JF, Chibeles-Martins N, Moniz AB. A review of multi- [52] “Manufacturing Cost and Installed Price Analysis of Stationary Fuel Cell Systems -
criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy storage systems for grid DocsLib,” 2015. https://docslib.org/doc/7077863/manufacturing-cost-and-install
applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Jun. 2019;107:516–34. https://doi.org/ ed-price-analysis-of-stationary-fuel-cell-systems (accessed Jun. 13, 2023).
10.1016/J.RSER.2019.02.016. [53] Wärtsilä, “Marine diesel engines - Wärtsilä.” https://www.wartsila.com/marine/pr
[30] Daniel H, Antunes CH, Trovão JPF, Williams D. Shore operations enhancement of oducts/engines-and-generating-sets/diesel-engines (accessed Jun. 16, 2023).
bulk carriers based on a multi-objective sizing approach. Energy Convers Manag [54] MAN, “Marine Engine Programme.” https://www.man-es.com/marine/products/
Jan. 2023;276:116497. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2022.116497. planning-tools-and-downloads/marine-engine-programme (accessed Jun. 13,
[31] Rivarolo M, Rattazzi D, Magistri L, Massardo AF. Multi-criteria comparison of 2023).
power generation and fuel storage solutions for maritime application. Energy [55] YANMAR, “Engines - YANMAR Marine International.” https://www.yanmar.com/
Convers Manag Sep. 2021;244:114506. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. marine/engines/ (accessed Jun. 13, 2023).
ENCONMAN.2021.114506. [56] H. O. Kristenen, H. Marineconsult, A. Hans, and O. Kristensen, “Energy demand
[32] “Impact Assessment - ecoinvent.” https://ecoinvent.org/the-ecoinvent-dat and exhaust gas emissions of marine engines,” 2015.
abase/impact-assessment/#:~:text=Footprints%20and%20impact%20categories [57] “Nava Charter Croatia - Navaboats.” https://navaboats.com/ (accessed Jun. 13,
%20can,for%20example%20kg%20CO2%2Dequivalents. (accessed Aug. 21, 2023).
2023). [58] “WinGD - Winterthur Gas & Diesel.” https://www.wingd.com/en/ (accessed Jun.
[33] “CCOHS: What is a LD50 and LC50?” https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ 13, 2023).
chemicals/ld50.html (accessed Aug. 21, 2023). [59] SEA-LNG, “LNG as a marine fuel-the investment opportunity sea\lng study-
[34] Kanchiralla FM, Brynolf S, Malmgren E, Hansson J, Grahn M. Life-Cycle newbuild pure car and truck carrier (PCTC) on pacific and atlantic trade lanes.”.
Assessment and Costing of Fuels and Propulsion Systems in Future Fossil-Free [60] “The world́ s first methanol ferry – StenaLine.com.” https://stenaline.com/media/
Shipping. Environ. Sci. Tech. Sep. 2022;56(17):12517–31. https://doi.org/ stories/the-worlds-first-methanol-ferry/ (accessed Jun. 13, 2023).
10.1021/ACS.EST.2C03016/SUPPL_FILE/ES2C03016_SI_001.PDF. [61] MAN B&W LGIM Engine, “The Methanol-fuelled MAN B&W LGIM Engine
[35] Di Micco S, Mastropasqua L, Cigolotti V, Minutillo M, Brouwer J. A framework for Application, service experience and latest development of the ME-LGIM engine
the replacement analysis of a hydrogen-based polymer electrolyte membrane fuel MAN Energy Solutions The methanol-fuelled MAN B&W LGIM engine 2 Future in
cell technology on board ships: A step towards decarbonization in the maritime the making 3,” 2021.
sector. Energy Convers Manag Sep. 2022;267:115893. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. [62] C. Cheng, R. Faurskov Cordtz, T. Berg Thomsen, N. Langballe Førby, and J.
ENCONMAN.2022.115893. Schramm, “Application of methanol with an ignition improver in a small marine CI
[36] A. Dotto and F. Satta, “Techno-economic optimization of hybrid-electric power engine,” Energy Convers Manag, vol. 271, p. 116311, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.
plants onboard cruise ships,” Energy Conversion and Management: X, p. 100436, ENCONMAN.2022.116311.
Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.ECMX.2023.100436. [63] Frigo S, Gentili R. Analysis of the behaviour of a 4-stroke Si engine fuelled with
[37] Power Cell Group, “Marine System 200.” https://powercellgroup.com/segment ammonia and hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy Feb. 2013;38(3):1607–15.
s/marine/ (accessed Jun. 09, 2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2012.10.114.
[38] Ballard, “FC Wave Marine Module.” https://www.ballard.com/fuel-cell-solutions/ [64] Comotti M, Frigo S. Hydrogen generation system for ammonia–hydrogen fuelled
fuel-cell-power-products/marine-modules (accessed Jun. 09, 2023). internal combustion engines. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy Sep. 2015;40(33):10673–86.
[39] Gadducci E, Lamberti T, Bellotti D, Magistri L, Massardo AF. BoP incidence on a https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2015.06.080.
240 kW PEMFC system in a ship-like environment, employing a dedicated fuel cell [65] Perna A, Jannelli E, Di Micco S, Romano F, Minutillo M. Designing, sizing and
stack model. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy Jul. 2021;46(47):24305–17. https://doi.org/ economic feasibility of a green hydrogen supply chain for maritime transportation.
10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2021.04.192. Energy Convers Manag Feb. 2023;278:116702. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[40] Elkafas AG, Rivarolo M, Gadducci E, Magistri L, Massardo AF. “Fuel Cell Systems ENCONMAN.2023.116702.
for Maritime: A Review of Research Development. Commercial Products, [66] Bellosta von Colbe J, et al. Application of hydrides in hydrogen storage and
Applications, and Perspectives” 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11010097. compression: Achievements, outlook and perspectives. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
[41] Accessed: Jun 2017;09:2023 [Online]. Available: https://www.emsa.europa.eu/p Mar. 2019;44(15):7780–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2019.01.104.
ublications/item/2921-emsa-study-on-the-use-of-fuel-cells-in-shipping.html. [67] Cavo M, Gadducci E, Rattazzi D, Rivarolo M, Magistri L. Dynamic analysis of PEM
[42] Pei P, Chen H. Main factors affecting the lifetime of Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cells and metal hydrides on a zero-emission ship: A model-based approach. Int.
fuel cells in vehicle applications: A review. Appl. Energy Jul. 2014;125:60–75. J. Hydrogen Energy Sep. 2021;46(64):32630–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2014.03.048. IJHYDENE.2021.07.104.
[43] Sheng C, et al. Energy management strategy based on health state for a PEMFC/ [68] Morales-Ospino R, Celzard A, Fierro V. Strategies to recover and minimize boil-off
Lithium-ion batteries hybrid power system. Energy Convers Manag Nov. 2022;271: losses during liquid hydrogen storage. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Aug. 2023;182:
116330. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2022.116330. 113360. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2023.113360.
[44] Sapra H, et al. Integration of solid oxide fuel cell and internal combustion engine [69] Det Norske Veritas (DNV), “Comparison of Alternative Marine Fuels SEA\LNG
for maritime applications. Appl. Energy Jan. 2021;281:115854. https://doi.org/ Ltd,” 2019, [Online]. Available: www.dnvgl.com.
10.1016/J.APENERGY.2020.115854. [70] Chart industries, “Powering the Future Through LNG,” 2022.
[45] Giugno A, Mantelli L, Cuneo A, Traverso A. Performance analysis of a fuel cell [71] International Maritime Organization, “RESOLUTION MSC.391(95) (adopted on 11
hybrid system subject to technological uncertainties. Appl. Energy Dec. 2020;279: June 2015) ADOPTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF SAFETY FOR SHIPS
115785. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2020.115785. USING GASES OR OTHER LOW-FLASHPOINT FUELS (IGF CODE),” 2016.
[46] Mantelli L, Ferrari ML, Traverso A. Dynamics and control of a turbocharged solid [72] MAN B&W engines, “Engineering the future two-stroke green-ammonia engine
oxide fuel cell system. Appl. Therm. Eng. Jun. 2021;191:116862. https://doi.org/ Fuelling the future by natural power MAN B&W engines powered by zero-carbon
10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2021.116862. fuels Future in the making,” 2019.
[47] Feng Y, et al. Progress and prospect of the novel integrated SOFC-ICE hybrid power [73] “Corvus Dolphin Energy - Corvus Energy.” https://corvusenergy.com/products/
system: System design, mass and heat integration, system optimization and techno- energy-storage-solutions/corvus-dolphin-energy/ (accessed Aug. 24, 2023).
economic analysis. Energy Conversion and Management: X Apr. 2023;18:100350. [74] “Data sheet-AKASOL-AKASystem-15OEM50PRC-WEB.pdf | Enhanced Reader.”.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECMX.2023.100350. [75] Bouakkaz A, Mena AJG, Haddad S, Ferrari ML. Efficient energy scheduling
[48] Milcarek RJ, DeBiase VP, Ahn J. Investigation of startup, performance and cycling considering cost reduction and energy saving in hybrid energy system with energy
of a residential furnace integrated with micro-tubular flame-assisted fuel cells for storage. J Energy Storage Jan. 2021;33:101887. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
micro-combined heat and power. Energy Apr. 2020;196:117148. https://doi.org/ EST.2020.101887.
10.1016/J.ENERGY.2020.117148. [76] Korkmaz SA, Erginer KE, Yuksel O, Konur O, Colpan CO. Environmental and
[49] Bloom Energy, “Bloom Energy Server - Bloom Energy,” 2022. https://www. economic analyses of fuel cell and battery-based hybrid systems utilized as
bloomenergy.com/resource/bloom-energy-server/ (accessed Jun. 13, 2023). auxiliary power units on a chemical tanker vessel. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy Jul.
[50] Convion, “Convion C60,” 2015. https://convion.fi/products/ (accessed Jun. 13, 2023;48(60):23279–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2023.01.320.
2023). [77] Vismara, “V68 PELOTARI PROJECT - Luxury Boat | Vismara Marine,” 2019.
[51] Cummins, “Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Technology | Accelera,” 2022. https://www.acc https://www.vismara-mc.com/yacht/v68 (accessed Jun. 13, 2023).
elerazero.com/fuel-cells/sofc (accessed Jun. 16, 2023). [78] https://rh2iwer.eu/ last access 28/9/2023.
16

A Multi Criteria Approach For Comparing Alternative 2023 Energy Conversion A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Multi Criteria Approach For Comparing Alternative 2023 Energy Conversion A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Multi Criteria Approach For Comparing Alternative 2023 Energy Conversion A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management: X

A multi-criteria approach for comparing alternative fuels and energy

least 40 % by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70 % by 2050, compared to

Nomenclature IMO International Maritime Organization

Fig. 1. Algorithm description.

Fig. 2. Description of the input–output relation.

Fig. 3. Of market analysis plot.

Fig. 4. Input interface of HELM software.

2.1.3. Internal combustion engines (ICEs) in Table 1.

Fig. 5. Sail Yacht scores in HELM.

fuelled by CH2 can be considered the best technology solution in a real

Fig. 6. Passenger Ferry Score in HELM.

Storage volume [m3] 5.69 10.7 6.53

The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the possibility to compare different

3.3.1. Max power & energy

Fig. 8. Cruise ship, max power score graph.

Fig. 9. Comparison between MDO, MDO-MeOH and MDO-LNG technologies results.

Fig. 10. Cruise ship, harbour score tool capture.

Fig. 11. Cruise ship harbour score graph.

Fig. 12. Container ship score graph.

You might also like