8/3/2019 Biaya Bahan Bakar Hydrogen Untuk Maritim_Marine Transport_Veldhuis_Ivo

1/1

I. Veldhuis

School of Engineering Sciences, University of Southampton, UK

Hydrogen Marine Fuel: What is the Cost ?uid Structure Interactionsesearch Group

ntroductiondrogens high gravimetric energy density (i.e. kJ/kg) allows new and exciting ship designportunities otherwise not feasible with established hydrocarbon fuels. A new generationhigh-speed foil-assisted catamaran containerships fuelled by LH2, operating on long haultes, represents one such new ship design opportunity. This ship is capable of operating64 knots with a container payload of 3000 TEU with only a LH 2 fuel mass of 1000nes operating on Pacific crossing routes. LH2 fuel mass thus only represents 34.5% of

yload, being substantially smaller than current high-speed ships in which fuel massrmally exceeds payload at a limited range of 3000 nautical miles at 40 knots.

shore-based infrastructure, i.e. marine fuel terminal, provides this new generation ofntainerships with its LH2 fuel, produced from natural gas. Figure 1 represents theernal flows within this terminal and within the high-speed ship. The model presentedms the basis of a cost model to determine the unit price of LH2 and capital costs for theminal. This information is utilized in economic research of high-speed marine containernsport.

Fig 1: Internal product flows w ithin the marine fuel terminal and high-speed ship.

Hydrogen unit costse unit LH

2product cost from the marine fuel terminal consist of various components

urred at different production stages. Such components are indicated in Figure 1 andbsequently, the LH2 unit cost is determined from cost component summation:

[2 ]

e unit hydrogen production cost from the SMR process of natural gas is based on thedrogen heating value, unit cost natural gas, SMR process efficiency (70%) and hydrogens density. Unit cost natural gas varies between 6 8 $/MBtu. Unit liquefaction cost isicated in Fig. 2A (Lower line only).

[3 ]

[4 ]

e hydrogen unit storage costs primarily involve the re-liquefaction costs of the boil-offs originating from the liquid hydrogen storage tanks, otherwise expressed as:

Fig. 3: SMR plant specific capital cost factor

Fig. 2A: Unit liquefaction costs Fig. 2B: Liq. plant specific capital cost factor

Terminal capital costsThe capital costs for the marine fuel terminal are based on combined cost components ofthe SMR and liquefaction plants in conjunction with the cryogenic storage facilities. Thecapital costs may thus be determined from the following summation:

[5 ]

The SMR plant capital costs are based upon its GH2 outflow capacity, SMR specific capitalcost factor and annual productivity time (tprod). This factor, see Fig. 3, is often presented inthe literature in cost/energy terms, rather than in the required cost/volume notation,hence the subsequent use of the hydrogen heating value in [6]. SMR plant capital cost isthus determined from:

[6 ]

The liquefaction plant capital costs are based on the hydrogen mass flow through theplant, a specific capital cost factor and annual productivity time. This cost factor isindicated in Fig. 2B based on liquefier mass flow. Subsequently, liquefier capital costs are:

[7 ]

Cryogenic storage tanks capital costs are based on a linear cost factor for large-scalevacuum perlite insulation tanks of 2.334 Euro/m3 and capital costs for this terminal plant

component can thus be determined from:

[8 ]

ConclusionsA hydrogen production and capital cost model has been developed for a hydrogen marinefuel terminal to establish the economic profile of LH2 fuel utilization in high-speedcontainerships. This combined cost model has been used to determine the economicviability of a very high-speed, LH2 fuelled marine container transport chain. This chainconsisted of two foil-assisted high-speed catamaran containerships and two marine fuelterminals, operating in opposing mode on Trans-Pacific and Trans-Atlantic routes, reportedon by Veldhuis et al (2005). Figure 4 presents results of the economic study of the high-speed marine container transport chain with 2 such containerships on the Trans-Atlanticroute. The results show that unit transport costs are higher than conventional marinetransport, however substantially lower than aviation transport at similar door-to-doordelivery times, indicating economic viable options for hydrogen fuelled fast ships.

The presented model is however also suitable for other routes and ship types. Furtherresearch is however required to enhance this model, particularly the modeling the innerworkings of the fuel terminal components.

AcknowledgementsEPSRC funding through the EngD. Centre is greatly acknowledged.Support during research of Dr. Richardson and H. Stone (Both SES) isalso greatly acknowledged.

Contact details

Ivo Veldhuis, School of Engineering Sciences

University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ

Email: ijsv@soton.ac.uk

www.H2Oceanjet.com

Both charts taken from Syed et al. (Intern. Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 23(7), 565-576.

Data points from Maddy et al. (University of Glamorgan)

Fig. 4: North Atlantic unit transport costs by mass

Terminal capacity & internal flowse hydrogen production capacity of the marine fuel terminal is primarily dependent one ship endurance requirements, the refueling frequency and the number of ships thate terminal supports. If a sequential fuel operating strategy is assumed, i.e. the terminalepares a single fuel load and after the fuel loading process is complete prepares the nextd. Terminal storage capacity is thus expressed in mass terms as :

[1 ]

e internal flows between the components of the terminal may be determined from theailable production time between ship arrivals.