Table 3 Gas emission reduction resulting from operating with different emission control systems compared to the use of LNG
From: Investment decisions under uncertainty on LNG-powered vessels for environmental compliance
Abatement technology/measure | Emission reduction (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
SOx | NOx | PM | CO2 | |
Basic internal engine modifications for 2 strokes, slow speed only | 0 | −20 | 0 | 0 |
Advanced internal engine modifications | 0 | −30 | 0 | 0 |
Direct water injection | 0 | −50 | 0 | 0 |
Humid air motors | 0 | −70 | 0 | 0 |
Exhaust gas recirculation + scrubbing | −93 | −35 | −63 | 0 |
Selective catalytic reduction (2.7% S residual oil fuel) | 0 | −90 | 0 | 0 |
Sea water scrubbing | − 75 | 0 | −25 | 0 |
Fuel switching (from 2.7% S to 1.5% S IFO) | −44 | 0 | −18 | 0 |
Fuel switching (from 2.7% > 1.5% S IFO) | − 81 | 0 | −20 | 0 |
Low S marine diesel (from 0.5% to > 0.1% S) | −80 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) | −90 | −80 | −100 | −20 |