Jump to content
Andy

HONFLEUR - New Build for Ouistreham Route

Recommended Posts

I may be wrong here, but I was under the impression that between 2 and 4 tankers would fill a "Grace" sized ship? and of course that would not be daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, there is no real hurry in PIP getting LNG bunkering installed. They need to assess any other future requirements. It is a massive investment in terms of infrastructure for the new facility, and to be honest if you can just drive a truck on and do it 'on the fly' then in the short term - why not? Potentially time saving also in terms of the turnaround...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The road transport of choice is a low pressure cryogenic trailer known as an ST-16300 which can hold 22.8 tonnes,16300 gallons or 61700 litres. They are triple axled and built in the USA. There is also a smaller tank, the ST-12700 which can hold 17.8 tonnes, 12700 gallons. These are twin axled.

 

The tie in with Total is interesting as it will mean transportation from South Hook in Pembrokeshire whilst Calor have the only other road transportation facility on the Isle of Grain which the likes of Centrica use. Total won't have road transport capability in northern France until Dunkirk is built, they own 9.9% of it. The nearest offering is HAROPA in Le Havre followed by Montoir de Bretagne.

 

The LNG facility in Avonmouth which supplied BOC is now closed.

 

Onboard tanks are relatively small, for instance one measuring just 3m x 5.5m x 6m will hold around 3000 cubic metres of LNG or 3,000,000 litres when regasified giving a range of 2500 nautical. That equates to 4.5 ST-16300 road tankers. As it's around a 203 nautical mile round trip to Ouistreham, we wouldn't be seeing them that often if MSM2 is similarly configured.

 

Some may find this of interest.Under the LNG Shipping PDF inclosed in it, there is a map of existing & proposed LNG facilities.

 

http://www.wartsila.com/products/marine-oil-gas/gas-solutions/fuel-gas-handling/wartsila-lngpac

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will the locals be happy with LNG trucks going through their midst? They weren't in Sweden.

 

LNG/LPG trucks are much safer than fuel HGVs and the number of trucks required will be far outnumbered by the flow of trucks going on the ferry anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will the locals be happy with LNG trucks going through their midst? They weren't in Sweden.

 

I Think earlier people confused LNG with LPG which far more volatile and kept under high pressure single skinned tanks meaning escapes tend to be a bit spectacular if not destructive whereas it's more commonly known now that LNG is under low pressure and in doubled skinned tanks, generally escapes are wholly unspectacular during refuelling just a white cloud which dissipates rapidly in ambient temperatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

LNG/LPG trucks are much safer than fuel HGVs and the number of trucks required will be far outnumbered by the flow of trucks going on the ferry anyway.

 

All of Brittany Ferries fuel is currently supplied by barge, except Plymouth where it is ex jetty from tanks supplied by barge.

Edited by seadog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did it say that the Total refuelling would be done in UK? Or could they plan to do it at Ouistreham?

 

I was assuming Ouistreham purely because the article started with "France's Total S.A...."

 

But later in the article it refers to "ports" (plural) served by the ship, so it may well be both.

Edited by Gareth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a Shippax article:

 

Supply of LNG will be in the form of ISO portable tank containers which, according to Brittany Ferries, is a more competitive solution than using a barge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the new Tallink ship (being discussed in this thread http://bfenthusiasts.com/forum/forum/other-ferry-operations/248469-tallink-ordered-new-49-000-ton-ferry), whilst an LNG-powered ship, is described as also able to run on conventional diesel. Is this a current industry norm (for contingency etc reasons)? If so then presumably the new BF ship will also have diesel capability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She will be bound to have diesel back up capability. Available anywhere and everywhere by barge or truck, a single point of supply such as an LNG terminal would be a weak link in the supply chain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From a Shippax article:

 

Supply of LNG will be in the form of ISO portable tank containers which, according to Brittany Ferries, is a more competitive solution than using a barge.

 

 

What exactly is that - is it a sort of shore-based temporary solution?

Edited by hf_uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISO tanks are a good solution, brought in pre filled on flat beds which can either be lifted onto deck space or shunted onto an open deck for connection.

 

As I mentioned previously it's the configuration of choice for Wartsila's LNGpac system.

 

http://hhpinsight.com/marine/2013/12/wartsila-describes-new-lngpac-iso/

 

So if I understand correctly that eliminates the need for the vessel to have internal storage tanks fitted (except for the backup diesel generators, assuming they are installed) and means a much faster method of refuelling. You simply remove the empty tanks and replace them with new ones on the outer deck area. The best analogy would therfore be that it's as simple as swapping the batteries in your TV remote control. I guess it won't speed up the turnaround times as vehicle unloading and loading will still take around as long as it did before but at least means that fuel can be delivered easily and to any port the vessel calls at and extra tanks can be carried when she heads of to Poland for a refit without the need to stop en route. Ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISO tanks are a good solution, brought in pre filled on flat beds which can either be lifted onto deck space or shunted onto an open deck for connection.

 

As I mentioned previously it's the configuration of choice for Wartsila's LNGpac system.

 

http://hhpinsight.com/marine/2013/12...ew-lngpac-iso/

 

 

That explains the strange 'Dover gangway' style semi-covered structure at the stern I reckon!

 

A lot of space for 'things' inside the ship then, if no internal tanks needed either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting that the new Tallink ship (being discussed in this thread http://bfenthusiasts.com/forum/forum/other-ferry-operations/248469-tallink-ordered-new-49-000-ton-ferry), whilst an LNG-powered ship, is described as also able to run on conventional diesel. Is this a current industry norm (for contingency etc reasons)? If so then presumably the new BF ship will also have diesel capability?

 

Apparently, a lot of of these ferries have/or will have dual fuel engines which can run on either LNG or diesel or any mixture of both fuels.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting that the new Tallink ship (being discussed in this thread http://bfenthusiasts.com/forum/forum/other-ferry-operations/248469-tallink-ordered-new-49-000-ton-ferry), whilst an LNG-powered ship, is described as also able to run on conventional diesel. Is this a current industry norm (for contingency etc reasons)? If so then presumably the new BF ship will also have diesel capability?

 

I think it's more to do with customer choice. The Fjordline twins run on LNG only whilst Viking have dual fuel capability with two small LNG tanks on her stern. I think it's also worth noting that the MAK plant fitted to both Pont Aven and MSM are capable of running on three fuel types, HFO, MGO & LNG with the appropriate conversion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it's more to do with customer choice. The Fjordline twins run on LNG only whilst Viking have dual fuel capability with two small LNG tanks on her stern. I think it's also worth noting that the MAK plant fitted to both Pont Aven and MSM are capable of running on three fuel types, HFO, MGO & LNG with the appropriate conversion.

 

But presumably they're not going to convert them to LNG or they wouldn't have bothered with the scrubbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But presumably they're not going to convert them to LNG or they wouldn't have bothered with the scrubbers?

 

 

I've never understood BF's decision to fit that type of catalyser at all, they're for HFO which is rapidly becoming more & more unavailable, they are a short term solution. The future for heavy transport will be ULSD with far smaller DPF's, CNG & LNG. Longer term due to its poor energy density, I think Compressed Natural Gas will be phased out too.

 

Perhaps BF didn't want to throw all of their eggs into one basket with PA & MSM, the conversion is costly and would have meant running on a single fuel source which even in early 2016 had expensive transportation costs & limited availability especially if even then TOTAL were BF's preferred supplier, their facility in Dunkirk didn't come online until late last year leaving just South Wales with the task of fueling.

 

Both Viking & Fjordline whilst leading the way, were still not totally convinced. Their LNG tank capacities shown on various websites are after regasification, not in their liquid storage form which seems to be what tank manufacturers and suppliers now favour. Each of the three ships carry around 6800 litres of LNG. It's why they need refuelling daily.

 

The ISO tanks which BF seem to favour for their new build are a lot larger offering far greater range, remember that LNG is condensed to 600 times it's size when liquified. One of the 20ft ISO tanks illustrated in the links above is 16 cubic metres weighing around 22 tonnes and carries 16000 litres

 

Although we see that duel fuel is offered this again is a bit of a misnomer. A ship can't decide on a daily basis which fuel they want to use, one is a gas and the other is a heavy liquid. They can't share the same combustion chamber as the process is different, heavy liquids don't readily mix well with air, they require a lot more energy to ignite whereas two gases mix well and require a lot less energy. LNG has very low hydrocarbon content, diesel is hydrocarbon heavy and would deposit soot in the same chamber that you'd need to feed gas... Not good.

 

The dual fuel capability is possibly chosen for political reasons in the Baltic area. Our Russian friend has been known in the past to limit supplies of LNG to the west. Having the ability to spend a few days in a dockyard to convert back to diesel could well be seen as an advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't "methane slip" a concern with dual fuel engines? This occurs when such an engine is burning LNG and something like only 95% of the fuel which is essentially methane is consumed, the rest goes out with the exhaust, a not very desirable state of affairs when methane is one of the principal greenhouse gases. Hence the Fjord Line ferries having pure gas main engines which do burn all the methane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't "methane slip" a concern with dual fuel engines? This occurs when such an engine is burning LNG and something like only 95% of the fuel which is essentially methane is consumed, the rest goes out with the exhaust, a not very desirable state of affairs when methane is one of the principal greenhouse gases. Hence the Fjord Line ferries having pure gas main engines which do burn all the methane.

 

Cows produce about 1 million times more methane than every ship on earth. I think we would have to have a serious go at the farming industry before we start worrying about that 5% !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't "methane slip" a concern with dual fuel engines? This occurs when such an engine is burning LNG and something like only 95% of the fuel which is essentially methane is consumed, the rest goes out with the exhaust, a not very desirable state of affairs when methane is one of the principal greenhouse gases. Hence the Fjord Line ferries having pure gas main engines which do burn all the methane.

 

 

It is, however Rolls Royce found that their Bergen B35's are prone to slippage too. To reduce it air bypass valves now lower the chamber content, knock tolerances have been greatly reduced through more advanced engineering so too has bore design & construction.

 

There is still slippage even HFO & MGO powered vessels experience it but looking at the figures NG is still the less polluting option...

 

On average NG produces 185 g/kWh less CO2 than HFO. A 6 g/kWh CH4 slip is more than compensated for, more so when we look at the power cycles.

 

At 750rpm HFO cylinder output is in the region of 450 kW/cyl, NG is pushing 510 kW/cyl. Close to an 14% increase.

 

Another point of interest is that even though NG energy density is only 60% of HFO & MGO since 2012 most operators are only seeing 4% drop off and of course there is the average 4% drop in fuel consumption when using NG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...