Year 2050

Similar to 2030, the feasible power plant configurations for the year 2050 are somewhere within the band width described with the four scenarios. The top three results and the required EEDI for 2050 scenarios are presented in table 5.6. More detailed model output is presented in appendix B.

Scenario 1 Required EEDI 17.72

Volume Indicator Score Power Plant Configuration

159 ICE - ULSFO - Batteries - PEMFC - NH3- Scrubber

178 ICE - ULSFO - Batteries - PEMFC - LH2- Scrubber

194 ICE - ULSFO - Batteries - SOFC - NH3- Scrubber Scenario 2

Required EEDI 12.54

Volume Indicator Score Power Plant Configuration

168 ICE - ULSFO - Batteries - PEMFC - NH3- Scrubber

214 ICE - MeOH - Batteries - PEMFC - NH3

214 ICE - LNG - Batteries - PEMFC - NH3 Scenario 3

Required EEDI 18.03

Volume Indicator Score Power Plant Configuration

158 ICE - ULSFO - Batteries - PEMFC - NH3- Scrubber

175 ICE - ULSFO - Batteries - PEMFC - LH2- Scrubber

190 ICE - ULSFO - Batteries - SOFC - NH3- Scrubber Scenario 4

Required EEDI 10.43

Volume Indicator Score Power Plant Configuration

213 ICE - MeOH - Batteries - PEMFC - NH3

265 ICE - NH3

274 ICE - MeOH - Batteries - PEMFC - LH2

5.1. First Case Study 61

Figure 5.6: VI scores for feasible power plants as presented in ap- pendix B for the first scenario in 2050 with different ICE energy carrier highlighted

Figure 5.7: VI scores for feasible power plants as presented in ap- pendix B for the second scenario in 2050 with different ICE energy carrier highlighted

Figure 5.8: VI scores for feasible power plants as presented in ap- pendix B for the third scenario in 2050 with different ICE energy carrier highlighted

Figure 5.9: VI scores for feasible power plants as presented in ap- pendix B for the fourth scenario in 2050 with different ICE energy carrier highlighted

As described in the previous subsection the different scenarios result in different required EEDI values. For the first scenario the required EEDI is 17.72 where for the similar third scenario the required EEDI is 18.03. The more stricter scenarios two and four result in a required EEDI of 12.54 and 10.43 respectively as can be seen in appendix B.

Scenario 1 and scenario 3 have almost identical output as was also observed in 2030. The MDO has disap- peared in the power plant configurations and scrubbers are added to ULSFO as a result of the stricter sulphur criteria compared to 2030. All top three VI score rated power plants are assigned with scrubbers as can be seen in figure 5.6 and figure 5.8. From this observation it can be concluded that the better ranked power plant configurations are all dependent on the use of a scrubber.

Furthermore, a SOFC with ammonia is for both the first and the third scenario ranked as third best. Even though the smaller volumetric and gravimetric density of the SOFC it is still ranked better than a PEMFC us- ing CGH2. Moreover if the model output is analyzed in general it is observed that power plant configurations

using CGH2have rather high VI scores which can be translated into a less adequate solution. Concluding that

the energy carrier CGH2takes up lots of volume due to the lower volumetric density resulting in a higher VI

score as can be seen in figure 5.6 and figure 5.8.

Additionally for the first and third scenario it can be concluded that the power plant configurations using ULSFO have overall a better VI score compared to other ICE energy carriers (table B.6 and table B.8). Option eight in figure 5.6 and 5.8 represents the power plant configuration ICE - LNG - Batteries. This configuration

62 5. Case Study Results

is competitive with configurations using ULSFO. However option eight does firstly not require a fuel cell and secondly still has a better VI score compared to power plant configurations using methanol, ammonia and hydrogen. Solely using hydrogen in either compressed gaseous or liquid state results in stand out VI scores which can be seen in option 9 and option 17. The options 10 to 15 in figure 5.6 and 5.8 represent the power plant configurations using methanol as an ICE carrier from which it can be concluded that these are relatively close to each other. Finally from option 16 it can be observed that ammonia fulfills the EEDI requirement as no fuel cells are required however it has relatively high VI score.

If the best three VI scores for the second scenario are analyzed from table 5.6 it can be stated that all these power plant configurations use a PEMFC and ammonia. The second and third best have as advantage that no scrubber is required. Furthermore it can be stated that the power plant configuration using LNG and methanol as an ICE energy carrier are similar in total gravimetric and volumetric density for this scenario. If the output of this scenario is compared to 2030 it can be observed that MDO is totally canceled out in 2050 and ULSFO requires a scrubber. From this it can be concluded that already MDO is phasing out on the longer term.

If the distribution of the VI score is analyzed from figure 5.7 it is observed that the previously cascading shape is now absent. As aforementioned, the stricter required EEDI results in more allocated power to the fuel cells. Subsequently a lower ratio between ICE allocated power and fuel cell allocated power is obtained resulting in a different distribution of feasible power plant configurations. Due to the stricter EEDI regulation the over- all VI scores went up and the distribution of the VI score is more irregular. This means that the power plant configurations are more apart. Configurations that previously had a rather large VI score gap to the best rated configurations are not unthinkable anymore in this scenario. Configurations using LNG as ICE energy carrier are closing in if the options 8 to 13 are analyzed in figure 5.7 and table B.7. Options 14 and 22 are still the same as in every scenario and every year as these are the configurations using pure hydrogen in an ICE and thus emit zero carbon dioxide or sulphur. Furthermore, it can be observed in options 15 to 20 that large variety is present in the configurations using methanol as energy carrier for ICE. Finally option 21 using only ammonia in an ICE is also becoming more viable.

For the fourth and last scenario it is noticed that only nine options are available for this strict scenario (figure 5.9). Only configurations using methanol, ammonia and hydrogen are among the feasible configurations. The overall VI score is again higher compared to other scenarios and thus closing in on the VI score of con- figurations using hydrogen in an ICE as in option 1 and 9 in figure 5.9 and table B.9. The best VI score in this scenario uses methanol and ammonia. The second best VI score does not include a fuel cell but is only an ICE running on ammonia (table 5.6). The variation in the methanol configurations as an ICE energy carrier are rather large. Overall it can be stated that configurations using PEMFC have a better VI score compared to SOFC due to the higher energy density. Furthermore it can be stated that for this scenario the less favourable options tend to go towards the VI score of configurations using ICE’s with hydrogen. Lastly, it is observed that option eight with has a competitive VI score differing from other scenarios.

For further research the model could be expanded to evaluate power plant configurations that use solely fuel cells as converters. This especially looks promising for the PEMFC as this type of fuel cell has the highest volumetric and gravimetric density.