Speaking to an international marine press party in Ulsteinvik, Norway, Oddbjorn Eliassen, Rolls-Royce Marine president, merchant, disagreed with the views presented in favour of the dual-fuel option by most of the speakers at the recent Mercator Media Gas Fuelled Ships conference in Rotterdam.<\/p>\n
Eliassen said that the gas-only engine would always be a better engineering solution than competitors\u2019 combined dual-fuel engines, which cannot be optimised for either gas or diesel. A gas-only engine can be significantly more efficient, with the Bergen lean-burn option recording figures of 50.3% efficiency, compared with a figure of 45% to 46% for diesels, less for dual-fuel versions.<\/p>\n
Apart from the superior specific fuel consumption, the gas-only solution avoids having to provide both gas and diesel tanks and fuel systems on board, which incur extra capital cost and reduce potential cargo volume.<\/p>\n
Another problem with dual-fuel engines is the poor transient load performance, taking some 2 minutes to respond at part load in gas mode, which, according to Rolls-Royce makes them unsuitable for use in harbour, which is exactly when the emissions benefit of gas fuel is most needed.<\/p>\n
Pure gas also, says Eliassen, produces less methane slip than dual-fuel engines in gas mode. As methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, some 21% to 25% more aggressive than CO2<\/sub>, this is another significant consideration.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" According to Rolls-Royce Marine, dual fuel gas\/diesel engines are not a good option, either engineering-wise or economically, compared with the Bergen lean-burn pure-gas solution.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":3228,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"sponsor":[],"class_list":["post-3227","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3227","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3227"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3227\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3229,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3227\/revisions\/3229"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3228"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3227"},{"taxonomy":"sponsor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/sponsor?post=3227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}