The Cleanest Ship Report 11022009 Final

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/273447753
FINAL REPORT THE CLEANEST SHIP PROJECT
Technical Report · February 2009

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4202.8326
CITATION READS
1 420
2 authors, including:
Juha Schweighofer
via donau - Österreichische Wasserstraßen-GmbH
43 PUBLICATIONS 71 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
ECCONET View project
Move IT! View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Juha Schweighofer on 12 March 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Final Report – The Cleanest Ship Project
FINAL REPORT
THE CLEANEST SHIP PROJECT
Date: February 11th, 2009
Authors:
Juha Schweighofer, via donau - Österreichische Wasserstraßen GmbH
Henk Blaauw, Marin - Maritime Research Institute Netherlands
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 1 of 26

Abstract
Inland navigation is known as a safe and environmentally friendly transport mode. Compared with
maritime navigation and short sea shipping, it has to fulfill much stricter emission regulations. Inland
navigation faces strong competition with road and rail transport, demanding superiority in
environmental friendliness as competitive advantage. Therefore, inland navigation has to deal with the
challenge of introducing highly efficient technologies for the improvement of its environmental
performance being applicable to small spaces, in contrast to seagoing vessels where generally enough
space is available.
Focussed on emissions to the air, the environmental performance of inland navigation and means for
its improvement were investigated in the EU project CREATING (www.creating.nu), carried out
within the Sixth Framework Programme. The application of advising Tempomaat, low sulphur fuel
equal to road standard EN 590, selective catalytic reduction and particulate matter filter was found to
be the most suitable solution to improve the environmental performance of inland navigation. These
systems are utilized in the demonstration project The Cleanest Ship, being a part of CREATING.
The project is carried out on the motor tank vessel “Victoria”, owned by BP and managed by
Verenigde Tankrederij (VT). The vessel, now on long term charter to BP Marine Lubricants, is
operating in the Port of Rotterdam and Antwerp areas. Lasting one year till the end of 2008, the
demonstration was launched in November 2007. Fuel consumption, energy output of the main engine
in kWh, distance sailed in km and NOX emissions are directly measured; CO2 and SOX emissions are
calculated from fuel consumption and energy output in kWh, whereas particulate matter emissions are
evaluated using the emission reduction potential estimated on the test stand. The latter is done because
accurate measurement of particulate matter emissions at service conditions is difficult.
During the pilot phase the emission reduction results, the amount of trucks replaced by the vessel and
the transport performance are monitored and presented on a regular basis on the project website:
www.cleanestship.eu.
This final report gives a short overview of the project, whereby results with respect to pollutant
exhaust emissions, fuel consumption, CO2 emissions, amount of trucks replaced, transport
performance and public relation are presented.
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 2 of 26

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5
2. The Cleanest Ship Demonstrator..................................................................................................... 6
3. Emission Reduction Techniques ..................................................................................................... 9
3.1. The Advising Tempomaat ....................................................................................................... 9
3.2. Low Sulphur Fuel.................................................................................................................... 9
3.3. The Nauticlean S System......................................................................................................... 9
3.4. Installations ........................................................................................................................... 10
3.5. Emission Reduction Expected............................................................................................... 11
4. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1. Emissions............................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.1. SOX Emissions............................................................................................................... 12
4.1.2. NOX Emissions .............................................................................................................. 13
4.1.3. Particulate Matter Emissions ......................................................................................... 15
4.1.4. Fuel Consumption ......................................................................................................... 17
4.1.5. CO2 Emissions .............................................................................................................. 18
4.1.6. Trucks Removed from Road ......................................................................................... 18
4.1.7. Transport Performance .................................................................................................. 19
4.1.8. Summary of Results ...................................................................................................... 20
4.2. Public Relation ...................................................................................................................... 20
4.2.1. Cleanest Ship Rotterdam ............................................................................................... 20
4.2.2. Clean Waterborne Transport ......................................................................................... 21
4.2.3. Consultation of the Project Website .............................................................................. 22
4.2.4. Publications ................................................................................................................... 22
5. Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 25
6. Appendix – Selected Publications ................................................................................................. 26
Creating News, Special Edition, 2007...............................................................................................
Posters presented at the 29th Duisburger Kolloquium in Duisburg, Germany, 2008 .......................
30th Motorship Propulsion and Emissions Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2008.......................
Zeitschrift für Binnenschifffahrt 9/2008 ...........................................................................................
Submission to the Green Ship Technology Award 2008 ..................................................................
Marine Fuels and Emissions Conference, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2007 .................................
The Flag – Newsletter of BP, September, 2007 ................................................................................
Press Book – Press Briefing Clean Waterborne Transport, Brussels, February, 2008......................
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 3 of 26

List of Tables
Table 2.1: Main particulars of the M/V Victoria.................................................................................... 8

Table 3.1: Emission reduction expected related to a CCR I engine ..................................................... 11
Table 4.1: Results of reference measurements for exhaust emissions.................................................. 12
Table 4.2: Emission reduction achieved............................................................................................... 20
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Emission reduction techniques applied to the Cleanest Ship............................................... 7

Figure 2.2: The Cleanest Ship M/V Victoria ......................................................................................... 7
Figure 2.3: General arrangement of the M/V Victoria without installed SCR and PM filters ............... 8
Figure 3.1: Working principle of selective catalytic reduction for NOX reduction.............................. 10
Figure 3.2: Main engine with complete installation............................................................................. 10
Figure 3.3: Exhaust output section....................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3.4: Urea injection and PM filter burner ................................................................................... 10
Figure 3.5: Urea tank in the aft ship..................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3.6: PM filter in the aft ship ...................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3.7: Screenshot of Tempomaat installed on board a vessel with three engines ........................ 11
Figure 4.1: SOX emissions per week .................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4.2: Total SOX emissions .......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4.3: NOX emissions per week measured ................................................................................... 14
Figure 4.4: NOX emissions per week measured in g/kWh ................................................................... 14
Figure 4.5: Total NOX emissions.......................................................................................................... 15
Figure 4.6: PM emissions per week calculated .................................................................................... 15
Figure 4.7: PM emissions per week in g/kWh calculated .................................................................... 16
Figure 4.8: Total PM emissions ........................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4.9: Fuel consumption per week measured............................................................................... 17
Figure 4.10: CO2 emissions per week .................................................................................................. 18
Figure 4.11: Trucks removed from road per week............................................................................... 19
Figure 4.12: Transport performance in tkm per week.......................................................................... 19
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 4 of 26

1. Introduction
Inland navigation is known as a safe and environmentally friendly transport mode. Compared with
maritime navigation and short sea shipping, it has to fulfill much stricter emission regulations. Inland
navigation faces strong competition with road and rail transport, demanding superiority in
environmental friendliness as competitive advantage. Therefore, inland navigation has to deal with the
challenge of introducing highly efficient technologies for the improvement of its environmental
performance being applicable to small spaces, in contrast to seagoing vessels where enough space is
available.
Regarding emissions to the air, especially with respect to emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2
(carbon-dioxide), the performance of inland vessels is outstanding compared with road transport. On
average, the CO2 emissions of an inland vessel are only about 1/3 of the ones a truck emits per ton-
kilometre (tkm) or even less due to a much higher energy efficiency. Also with respect to CO (carbon
monoxide) and HC (hydro carbon) emissions per tkm, inland navigation is significantly superior to
road transport. However, SOX (sulphur oxide) emissions associated with inland navigation are actually
much higher than the ones resulting from road transport, even when related to tkm (today, these
emissions are up to 60 times higher) due to the much higher sulphur content of fuel used.
The introduction of stricter emission limits for road transport since the early 1990s has led to a
significant reduction of the pollutant emissions of NOX (nitrogen oxide) and PM (particulate matter)
on road. For inland navigation, such strict emission limits are still missing. Consequently, the
superiority in the environmental performance of inland vessels compared with trucks has become
smaller in this regard, and with the introduction of EURO V and EURO VI limits for road transport in
2009 and 2012 (proposed by the European Commission), respectively, these new trucks may emit
even significantly less NOX and PM per tkm than inland vessels.
Within the EU project CREATING (www.creating.nu), carried out within the Sixth Framework
Programme, the application of advising Tempomaat, low sulphur fuel equal to road standard EN 590,
selective catalytic reduction and PM filter was found to be the most suitable solution to improve the
environmental performance of inland navigation. These systems are utilized in the demonstration
project The Cleanest Ship (www.cleanestship.eu).
This report gives a short review of the project, whereby results with respect to pollutant exhaust
emissions, fuel consumption, CO2 emissions, amount of trucks replaced, transport performance and
public relation are presented.
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 5 of 26

2. The Cleanest Ship Demonstrator
The demonstration project is carried out on the motor tank vessel “Victoria”, owned by BP shipping,
managed by the Verenigde Tankrederij (VT) and operating in the Port of Rotterdam and Antwerp
areas. The demonstration, lasting one year till the end of 2008, was launched officially in Rotterdam
on November 20th, 2007. On February 28th, 2008, the vessel was presented in the Port of Brussels for a
one-day press event illustrating how clean shipping technology is revolutionising the way goods are
transported in Europe. The emission reduction techniques applied to the Cleanest Ship are the advising
Tempomaat, low sulphur fuel equal to road standard EN 590, selective catalytic reduction and
particulate matter filters, Fig. 2.1.
Fuel consumption, energy output of the main engine in kWh, distance sailed in km and NOX emissions
are directly measured; CO2 and SOX emissions are calculated from the fuel consumption and the
energy output in kWh, whereas PM emissions are evaluated using the emission reduction potential
estimated on the test stand, due to difficult accurate measurement of PM emissions at service
conditions.
During the pilot phase the results with respect to SOX, NOX and PM emissions, fuel consumption, CO2
emissions, the amount of trucks replaced and transport performance are monitored and presented to the
public on a regular basis at www.cleanestship.eu.
The Cleanest Ship Project was set up and became operational within the EU Project CREATING,
funded by the Sixth Framework Programme for Sustainable Surface Transport. The partners of The
Cleanest Ship Project are:
1. BP, being owner of the ship, director of the project and provider of clean fuel
2. VT, as manager of the ship
3. Technofysica for the delivery of the Tempomaat and related measurements
4. Hug Engineering for the delivery of the SCR and PM filter for the main engine
5. Hanwel (also referred to as Codinox as Soottech) for the PM filters on the generator sets and
NOX and PM measurements
6. Breko for all constructional aspects
7. MTU for engine aspects
8. Lloyds register for classification
9. DLD for project coordination
10. Yara for the delivery of the Ureum
11. Bit Factory, for the realization of the website
12. via donau for techniques and public relation (PR)
13. VNSI and SPB for PR
14. SPB as co-ordinator of the project CREATING
Moreover there is a cooperation with

15. the Port of Rotterdam Authority on operational aspects and PR.
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 6 of 26

Figure 2.1: Emission reduction techniques applied to the Cleanest Ship.
Figure 2.2: The Cleanest Ship M/V Victoria.
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 7 of 26

Figure 2.3: General arrangement of the M/V Victoria without installed SCR and PM filters.
Source: http://www.breko.com/Breko/pdf/victoria.pdf
Table 2.1: Main particulars of the M/V Victoria.
Europe number 2327269

Ship owner BP
Management Verenigde Tankrederij VT (NL)
Year of construction 2005
Shipyard / builder Breko Nieuwbouw B.V., Papendrecht, NL
Classification Lloyd's Register EMEA
Execution ADNR, type N closed
Length o.a. 69,96 m
Breadth o.a. 11,44 m
Draught max. 2,96 m
Depth 4,25 m
Loading capacity 1377 tons
Tank capacity 1509 m3
Main engine MTU 8V 4000 M60, 880 kW/1197 hp, 1800 rpm
Fuel Low sulphur fuel, diesel EN 590
1 Propeller Diameter = 1.7 m; 5 blades
Auxiliary engines Cummins N14 G2 425 kVA 60 Hz
Cummins BT5,9 G6 112 kVA 50 Hz
Cummins 4 BT3,9 G4 67 kVA 60 Hz
1 Bow thruster Veth-Jet 265 kW, electric drive
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 8 of 26

3. Emission Reduction Techniques
The emission reduction techniques utilized are the advising Tempomaat, low sulphur fuel equal to
road standard EN 590, selective catalytic reduction and PM filters. As advising Tempomaat a system
developed by Techno Fysica bv (NL) is used. The selective-catalytic-reduction catalyst and diesel
particulate matter filters are implemented in the Nauticlean S system comprising a single reactor for
NOX and PM removal, developed and built by Hug Engineering (D). Further, the auxiliary engines are
equipped with particulate matter filters.
3.1. The Advising Tempomaat
The advising Tempomaat (ATM) is a system enabling an economically optimised operation of a

vessel.
The core of the ATM is formed by a computer programme advising the skipper on the most
economical combination of route and speed, enabling the vessel to arrive on time with a most efficient
use of fuel leading to a reduction of fuel consumption and emissions. The ATM, where the advised
fuel settings are realised manually, is the successor of the Tempomaat which did automatically adjust
the speed of the vessel, without giving advice.
Further, the Tempomaat is used for monitoring of fuel consumption, energy output in kWh and sailed
distance in km.
3.2. Low Sulphur Fuel
The motor vessel “Victoria” is operated with low sulphur fuel equal to road standard (diesel fuel EN
590). Usage of low sulphur fuel is a precondition for the application of PM filters and efficient
reduction of PM and SOX emissions as these emissions are related to the sulphur content of the fuel
used.
3.3. The Nauticlean S System
The Nauticlean S system of Hug Engineering consists of two reactors with a selective-catalytic-
reduction catalyst and a PM filter, whereby the PM filter is equipped with a diesel full-flow
regenerative burner.
Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is a technique for efficient removal of NOX emissions by means of
injecting a reducing agent into the exhaust gas. The Nauticlean S system uses ammonia to reduce
nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide to nitrogen and water, which is injected as urea (33 %
solution), Fig. 3.1.
For efficient PM removal catalytically coated silicon carbide (SiC) PM filters are used. These filters
consist of several honeycombs made of micro fibres. During operation, the soot particles are retained
in the filter. As soon as the regeneration temperature is reached, the soot in the filters is burned off
without residue. Due to the catalytic coating, the regenerating temperature is around 450 °C and the
filter burns itself clean without requiring auxiliary energy.
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 9 of 26

Figure 3.1: Working principle of selective catalytic reduction for NOX reduction.
3.4. Installations
Figure 3.2: Main engine with complete installation. Figure 3.3: Exhaust output section.
Figure 3.4: Urea injection and PM filter burner. Figure 3.5: Urea tank in the aft ship.
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 10 of 26

Figure 3.6: PM filter in the aft ship. Figure 3.7: Screenshot of Tempomaat installed
on board a vessel with three engines.
3.5. Emission Reduction Expected
Table 3.1: Emission reduction expected related to a CCR1 I engine. The emission reduction potential
of low sulphur fuel with respect to PM emissions is based on the assumption that
the sulphur content is reduced from 2000 ppm to 10 ppm.
NOx PM FC CO2 SOx
ATM (advising Tempomaat) -7% -7% -7% -7% -7%
LSF (low sulphur fuel, EN 590, 10

none -17% none none -99.5%
ppm)
SCR (selective catalytic reduction) -85% none none none none
PMF (particulate matter filter) none -95%2 +2% +2% +2%
Total emission reduction -86% -96% -5% -5% -99.5%
For the advising Tempomaat, the fuel consumption (FC) may be reduced by 5 up to 10%. For the
demonstrator a moderate value is assumed due to the limited effect resulting from the operational area
of the vessel. The value for the particulate matter filter includes also the effect of SCR on PM
reduction.
1
Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine
2
The technical information of Hug Engineering gives an emission reduction potential of 95 up to 99 %.
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 11 of 26

4. Results
4.1. Emissions
In the following the results with respect to pollutant SOX emissions, NOX emissions, particulate matter
emissions, fuel consumption and CO2 emissions are presented, as well as an estimate of trucks
replaced and the transport performance in ton kilometre (tkm) is given. Due to lack of space the
numbers representing weeks of measurement are presented in vertical order. The savings presented are
based on reference measurements carried out prior to the operation of the vessel with the emission
reduction techniques applied. The reference measurements give the following values for the exhaust
emissions of the vessel without application of emission reduction techniques:
Table 4.1: Results of reference measurements for exhaust emissions.
8 100 % engine loading, direct measurement

NOX
9 70% engine loading, direct measurement
[g/kWh]
15 40 % engine loading, direct measurement
PM
0.15 Taken from engine specification of MTU
[g/kWh]
CH
3 Taken from engine specification of MTU
[g/kWh]
Calculated on basis of fuel report analysis
SOX for 2000 ppm sulphur content and a specific
0.81
[g/kWh] fuel consumption of 203 g/kWh (70 %
engine loading)
4.1.1. SOX Emissions
Figure 4.1: SOX emissions per week.
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 12 of 26

Figure 4.2: Total SOX emissions.
SOX emissions inhaled in high concentrations may cause breathing difficulties and provoke attacks of
asthma. In association with their subsequent chemical reactions and deposition, they are one main
cause of acidification of soil and water. SOX emissions are directly related to the sulphur content of the
fuel. Reducing the sulphur content of the fuel, being a precondition for the application of several
emission reduction techniques, will lead to an aliquot reduction of SOX emissions. The motor tank
vessel "Victoria" uses low sulphur fuel, diesel fuel in accordance with EN 590, leading to a reduction
of SOX emissions by almost 100 % compared with diesel fuel with 2000 ppm sulphur content.
4.1.2. NOX Emissions
NOX emissions may cause pulmonary damage in healthy humans, changes in lung function as well as
increased respiratory symptoms, and they contribute to the formation of ground level ozone. Further,
NOX emissions play a role in acidification and eutrophication. NOX emissions may be reduced
effectively by selective catalytic reduction, being applied to the motor tank vessel "Victoria".
For the first weeks the NOX emissions account for approximately 2g/kWh, Fig. 4.4. Starting from
week 12, they account for approximately 1g/kWh, which is achieved by reducing idle states of the
engine leading to higher average exhaust temperatures and a more efficient performance of the SCR.
Compliance with CCR III (Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine) and EURO V standards
is achieved. Compliance with EURO VI standard is partially achieved. The reduction of total NOX
emissions accounts for approximately 82 %, which is considered as lower limit as the emissions
without SCR are calculated with an emission factor of 8 g/kWh at 100 % engine loading. In reality the
engine loading is less than 100 % and the reference NOX emissions will be increased leading to an
emission reduction of more than 82 %.
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 13 of 26

Figure 4.3: NOX emissions per week measured.
Figure 4.4: NOX emissions per week measured in g/kWh.
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 14 of 26

Figure 4.5: Total NOX emissions.
4.1.3. Particulate Matter Emissions
Figure 4.6: PM emissions per week calculated.
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 15 of 26

Figure 4.7: PM emissions per week in g/kWh calculated.
Figure 4.8: Total PM emissions.
Particulate matter, particularly the one being fine enough to remain within the lung, may cause
respiratory and cardiovascular diseases as well as cancer. Particulate matter may be effectively
reduced by particulate matter filters, which, however, require the usage of low sulphur fuel (sulphur
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 16 of 26

content not more than 10 ppm). The motor tank vessel "Victoria" uses diesel fuel in accordance with
EN 590 and particulate matter filters for the main and auxiliary engines.
For all weeks the particulate matter emissions account for approximately 0.004 g/kWh being
calculated from the reference value 0.15 g/kWh by assuming an emission reduction potential of 97 %.
This leads to compliance of the engine with strictest emission standards of road transport (EURO VI).
4.1.4. Fuel Consumption
Figure 4.9: Fuel consumption per week measured.
Reducing the fuel consumption of a vessel will result in decreased operational costs and emissions to
the air. To the motor tank vessel "Victoria" it was initially planned to apply the advising Tempomaat,
giving information with respect to the most economical speed of the vessel and leading thereby to
reduced fuel consumption.
All results show no savings, since the Tempomaat is not advising. The Tempomaat is used mainly for
monitoring of fuel consumption, energy output in kWh and sailed distance in km. During the pilot
phase it turned out that the Tempomaat system does not provide immediate benefits when applied to
the repeated, short and time sensitive arrival journeys being the daily activity of a lube oil barge.
Alternative options related to the application of the Tempomaat to more suitable operational cases are
under consideration.
The measurements of fuel consumption have to be taken with caution as they seem to be influenced by
electromagnetic waves resulting in slightly increased values. The possible error is estimated at
approximately 15 %.
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 17 of 26

4.1.5. CO2 Emissions
Figure 4.10: CO2 emissions per week.
CO2 emissions are greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to the global warming of the earth. CO2
emissions are directly related to the fuel consumption of the vessel. Reducing the fuel consumption of
the vessel will lead to reduced CO2 emissions. Due to its high energy efficiency, inland navigation is
outstanding with respect to CO2 emissions related to tkm, compared with the ones emitted by other
transport modes e.g. road transport.
All results show no savings, since the Tempomaat is not advising, similarly to the results related to the
fuel consumption.
4.1.6. Trucks Removed from Road
Shifting cargo from road to water contributes to the decongestion of roads, the reduction of emissions
to the air and improved safety of transport. In the figure below, the number of trucks removed from
road since the start of the demonstration by the motor tank vessel "Victoria" is given.
The average amount of cargo transported accounts for 16 tons per truck, which operates 40 hours a
week with an average speed of 30 km/hour resulting in a transport performance of 19200 tkm per
week. The number of trucks replaced is obtained by dividing the transport performance of the vessel
with 19200. The transport performance of the vessel is given in the following section.
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 18 of 26

Figure 4.11: Trucks removed from road per week.
4.1.7. Transport Performance
Figure 4.12: Transport performance in tkm per week.
The figure above gives the evolution of the transport performance of the motor tank vessel "Victoria"
in ton km (tkm). Referring fuel consumption, emissions and costs to tkm, a proper comparison
between different transport solutions may be carried out (e.g. comparison of emissions in g/tkm
between inland vessel and truck).
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 19 of 26

4.1.8. Summary of Results
Generally, the overall objectives are achieved. It is demonstrated that the emission reduction
techniques under consideration can be applied to inland navigation without major difficulties, leading
to a significant reduction of emissions. The advising Tempomaat is used mainly for monitoring of fuel
consumption, energy output in kWh and sailed distance in km as it turned out that the Tempomaat
system does not provide immediate benefits when applied to the repeated, short and time sensitive
arrival journeys being the daily activity of a lube oil barge. Therefore, no results are presented with
respect to reduction of fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.
Based on the measurements performed, the average reduction of NOX emissions accounts for
approximately 82 % and even more, depending on the engine loading and respective reference value.
Compliance with EURO V and partly even with EURO VI standard is achieved.
Based on reference measurements and an emission reduction potential of 97 %, compliance with

EURO VI standard is achieved for particulate matter emissions.
By using low sulphur fuel according to EN 590, the SOX emissions are reduced by almost 100 %
compared with the ones associated with diesel fuel with 2000 ppm sulphur content. No problems
related to engine operation were encountered when using low sulphur fuel EN 590.
Table 4.2: Emission reduction achieved.
NOx PM FC CO2 SOx

Emissions without emission
reduction techniques 8 0.15 203 644 0.81
[g/kWh]
Emissions with emission reduction
techniques 2.2 – 0.8 0.004 203 644 0.004
[g/kWh]
Total emission reduction
5.8 – 7.2 0.146 0.806
[g/kWh]
Total emission reduction 72.5 –
97 99.5
[%] 90.0
Total emission reduction expected
86 96 5 5 99.5
[%]
4.2. Public Relation
Within The Cleanest Ship Project very intensive activities with respect to public relation have been
performed with great success and acknowledgement. These comprise the establishment of the project
webpage (www.cleanestship.eu), the organisation of two major events in the Port of Rotterdam and
the Port of Brussels as well as numerous publications and presentations in radio, press, internet and
internal websites.
4.2.1. Cleanest Ship Rotterdam
The Cleanest Ship Rotterdam event took place in the Port of Rotterdam on November 20th , 2007,
where the demonstration was officially launched. The presentations are available at
http://www.creating.nu/event/view/129?pool=top. The programme is given in the following:
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 20 of 26

15.00 Welcome reception

15.30 Word of welcome by the chairman
Mr. A. Toet, Director Infrastructure and Maritime Affairs Port of Rotterdam
Mr. A.N. Roos, Project co-ordinator CREATING / Director Central Bureau for Inland Barging
Mr. M.J. van der Wal, Chairman of The Netherlands Shipbuilding Industry Association
Mr. D. Baldry, Group Vice President & CEO – BP Shipping Ltd
Mr. R.F.M. Lubbers, Chairman of Rotterdam Climate Initiative (no speech available)
16.00 Guided tours of the Cleanest Ship followed by refreshments
17.30 End
4.2.2. Clean Waterborne Transport
The Clean Waterborne Transport event took place in the Port of Brussels on February 28th, 2008.
The European Commission, the Port of Brussels, energy company BP and the EU research projects
CREATING, HERCULES and METHAPU presented their project results, including a tour to the
Cleanest Ship demonstration vessel, BP’s motor tank vessel “Victoria”. The presentations are
available at http://www.creating.nu/event/view/128?pool=top. The programme is given in the
following:
MORNING SESSION
Chair:
Bert de Vries, Netherlands’ Shipbuilding Industry Association (CREATING partner)
• Welcome of participants
Laurence Bovy, Chairwoman, Port of Brussels
• European research: supporting cleaner, safer, more competitive shipping
Janez Potoþnik, European Commissioner for Science and Research
• CREATING project: Towards sustainable, safe and efficient inland water transport
Theresia Hacksteiner, Secretary General European Barge Union (CREATING partner)
• BP’s Commitment to clean waterborne transport
Simon Lisiecki, Vice President Government & Industry, BP Shipping (Cleanest Ship partner)
• Q&A session with the press
Moderator: Antonia Mochan, EU Spokeswoman for Science and Research
• Coffee break and networking opportunities
(Commissioner and TV press visit of ship)
SESSION II: European Research Powering Clean Shipping

Chair:
Luisa Prista, Head of Unit, Surface Transport Research, European Commission
• European Parliament’s view on clean shipping

Dorette Corbey, Member EP Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,
and of the Temporary Committee on Climate Chang
• METHAPU project: Fuel cell power on board ships
Carl-Erik Sandström, Wärtsila Corporation (METHAPU partner)
www.methapu.eu
• HERCULES project: The next generation of large marine diesel engines
Nikolaos Kyrtatos, ULEME (HERCULES coordinator)
• Q&A session with the press
Moderator: Patrick Vittet-Philippe, Press and Information Officer, DG Research, European
Commission
• Lunch, networking and visit of the “Victoria”
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 21 of 26

SESSION III: Technical Briefings

Chair:
Bert de Vries, Netherlands’ Shipbuilding Industry Association (CREATING partner)
• Combustion with ultra low emissions for ships

Nikolaos Kyrtatos, ULEME (HERCULES coordinator)
• Methanol and SOFC fuel cells for auxiliary power on board of vessels
Carl-Erik Sandström, Wärtsila Corporation (METHAPU partner)
• Research goals and results of CREATING
Henk Blaauw, Technical coordinator CREATING
• Exhaust gas treatment on board the “Victoria“
Hans Thomas Hug, CEO Hug Engineering (Cleanest Ship partner)
• Environmental solutions for NOX treatment
Thorleif Hals, Managing Director Yarwil (Cleanest Ship partner)
• Optimizing fuel efficiency by speed advising device
Piet Kloppenburg, Managing Director Techno Fysica (Cleanest Ship partner)
4.2.3. Consultation of the Project Website
The site has been visited 5898 times with a small peak at the start of the project in November, 2007,
and a huge peak in the second half of February, 2008. There were 4346 so called unique visitors
(about 75 %).
The visitors are from 99 countries - most of them from the Netherlands (1293).
About 35 % of visitors got to the site directly, 46 % via other sites which refer to the Cleanest Ship
website and 19 % via search machines like google.
Apart from the homepage, the main interest of the visitors lies in the project information and the
charts.
Using google Victoria “cleanest ship” gives 934 hits.
4.2.4. Publications
In the following selected publications issued by The Cleanest Ship team are presented. The list is not
claimed to be complete.
Publications and written contributions relevant to The Cleanest Ship
Date Author Topic Means of Publications Remark
The Development of Most significant journal

September, Pauli, G. and Magazine Zeitschrift für
Exhaust Emissions for inland navigation in
2008 Schweighofer Binnenschifffahrt 9/2008
in Inland Navigation German speaking area
Most significant
Schweighofer, Danube Summit 2008,
Virtual Guided Tour conference related to the
June, 2008 J. and Blaauw, Constantza, Romania,
of the Cleanest Ship development of Danube
H. G. presentation.
navigation
Schweighofer, How to Improve the
30th Motorship Propulsion Significant international
J., Blaauw, H. Environmental
May, 2008 and Emissions Conference, conference related to
G. and Smyth, Performance of
Gothenburg, Sweden. engine aspects
M. D. Inland Navigation
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 22 of 26

Blaauw, H. G, Green Ship

2008 Schweighofer, Technology Award The Cleanest Ship Submitted for award
Smyth, M.D. 2008
Blaauw, H. G.,
Marine Fuels and Emissions
November, Schweighofer,
The Cleanest Ship Conference, Rotterdam, The
2007 J. and Smyth,
Netherlands.
M. D.
Significant international
Schweighofer, Inland The Naval Architect of The
November, journal for developments
J. and Seiwerth, Environmental Royal Institution of Naval
2007 in shipping and
P. Performance Architects
shipbuilding
November,
Creating News Special Edition
2007
The environmental
September,
performance of The flag – Newsletter of BP Magazine of BP
2007
inland navigation
Numerous articles were published in the international press being collected in

http://www.cleanestship.eu/fileupload/Press_Book.pdf. In the following a list of selected publications
by others than the Cleanest Ship team is presented. The list is not claimed to be complete.
Significant international
July/August, Creating world´s journal for shipping and
The Motorship
2008 cleanest ship shipbuilding with focus
on engine issues
March/April, Lubes barge goes Magazine of
Bunkerworld
2008 green Bunkerworld
European World’s cleanest
Fundings ship demonstrates
February http://www.welcomeurope.c
(source:Press how research is
28th, om/default.asp?id=1300&id
Room – developing the
2008 news=4505
European waterborne transport
Commission) of the future
The Cleanest Ship http://envirofuel.com.au/20
th Project shows 08/03/10/the-cleanest-ship-
March 10 ,
Envitofuel shipping emissions project-shows-shipping-
2008
can be drastically emissions-can-be-
reduced drastically-reduced/
The World's
'Cleanest Ship'
February Commissioner Visits Brussels - http://www.cbrb.nl/docume
Speech
28th, Janez European Research nten/creating/Speech_Potoc
2008 POTOCNIK for Clean nik.pdf
Waterborne
Transport Event
CREATING
DEMONSTRATES
HOW RESEARCH
www.inlandports.be/downlo
August 25th, Creating IS DEVELOPING
ad/Press%20message%20C
2008 Project Bureau GREEN INLAND
WT.doc
WATERWAY
TRANSPORT OF
THE FUTURE
Ir. Piet
February Optimizing fuel http://www.cbrb.nl/docume
Kloppenburg, Presentation
28th, efficiency by speed nten/creating/Presentation_t
Techno Fysica
2008 advising device ext_Kloppenburg.pdf
B.V.
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 23 of 26

Thorleif Hals,
February Managing Environmental http://www.cbrb.nl/docume
Presentation
28th, Director Yarwil solutions for NOX nten/creating/Presentation_
2008 Cleanest Ship treatment Hals.pdf
Partner
RESEARCH:
POTOCNIK http://findarticles.com/p/arti
March, Europe
UNVEILS cles/mi_hb6637/is_200803/
2008 Environment
WORLD’S ai_n26520538
CLEANES SHIP
http://www.infrasite.net/ne
Februar 28th, Infrasite Cleanest ship ws/news_article.php?ID_nie
2008 Worldwide demonstration uwsberichten=9407&langua
ge=en
Ruud Lubbers geeft http://www.bp.com/generic
November
BP startsein voor article.do?categoryId=1600
20th, 2007
Cleanest Ship 2516&contentId=7038525
World's Cleanest
February http://engineers.ihs.com/ne
IHS Ship Demonstrates
29th, ws/2008/eu-en-clean-ships-
Engineering Future Waterborne
2008 2-08.htm
Transport
From the Lab to
Europe’s http://ec.europa.eu/research/
February European
Waterways: The index.cfm?pg=newsalert&lg
28th, Comission
World's Cleanest =en&year=2008&na=na-
2008 Research
Ship ‘Victoria’ 080208
Visits Brussels
From the Lab to
Europe's
February http://www.webstar.be/Proj
European Waterways:
28th, ects/Ogilvy/ECCR/eMailing
Comission Low Emissions
2008 /13E0/EN1.php
Clean Ship 'Victoria'
Visits Brussels
http://www.dpc-
The world’s cleanest belgrade.co.yu/archive_200
January / ship visits the port 8.htm
DPC- Danube
February of Brussels www.dpc-
Project Centre
2008 belgrade.co.yu/download/T
he_Danube_Web_News_11
.doc
World's cleanest
ship demonstrates http://www.eumonitor.net/
February
how research is modules.php?op=modload&
28th, EUmonitor
developing the name=News&file=article&s
2008
waterborne transport id=95419
of the future
European Key EU projects
http://ec.europa.eu/research/
March 11th, Commission- demonstrate clean
transport/news/article_6861
2008 Transport waterborne transport
_en.html
Research
Demonstrator on the
first inland ship http://www.dld.nl/projects/e
DLD using clean fuel and nvironment/cleanestship.ht
equiped with PM ml
filter and SCR
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki
Wikipedia Cleanest ship
/Cleanest_Ship
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 24 of 26

5. Summary
Focussed on emissions to the air, the environmental performance of inland navigation and means for
its improvement were investigated in the EU project CREATING (www.creating.nu), carried out
within the Sixth Framework Programme. The application of advising Tempomaat, low sulphur fuel
equal to road standard EN 590, selective catalytic reduction and particulate matter filter was found to
be the most suitable solution to improve the environmental performance of inland navigation. These
systems are utilized in the demonstration project The Cleanest Ship, being a part of CREATING.
With respect to the achievement of the overall objectives the project constitutes a great success. It is
demonstrated that the emission reduction techniques under consideration can be applied to inland
navigation without major difficulties, leading to a significant reduction of emissions and superiority of
inland navigation compared with road transport complying with strictest emission standards.
By using low sulphur fuel according to EN 590, the SOX emissions are reduced by almost 100 %
compared with the ones associated with diesel fuel with 2000 ppm sulphur content. No problems
related to engine operation were encountered when using low sulphur fuel EN 590.
Based on the measurements performed, the average reduction of NOX emissions accounts for
approximately 82 % and even more, depending on the engine loading and respective reference value.
Compliance with EURO V and partly even with EURO VI road standard is achieved.
Based on reference measurements and an emission reduction potential of 97 %, compliance with

EURO VI road standard is achieved for particulate matter emissions.
The Cleanest Ship project contributes directly to the implementation of EC transport policy,
particularly, with respect to the implementation of the Action Programme NAIADES, COM(2006) 6
final, which requires the improvement of logistics efficiency, as well as environmental and safety
performance of inland waterway transport. The project contributes in a very impressive and practical
way to an even “greener” inland navigation fleet improving its competitiveness in the light of
environmental friendliness becoming a competitive factor of increasing significance.
For further information on the project and the measurements contact:
Henk Blaauw
Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN)
Tel: +31 317 493 502
Mail: blaauw@dld.nl, H.Blaauw@marin.nl
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 25 of 26

6. Appendix – Selected Publications
Date: 11/02/2009 Page 26 of 26

Creating News, Special Edition, 2007

SPECIAL EDITION
CREATING NEWS NOVEMBER 2007

INTRODUCTION
CREATING NEWS is the periodical newsletter of CREATING, a European research project which aims at
stimulating waterborne transport within logistic chains, paying attention to both economical, environmental
and safety aspects.
The research on environmental impact of inland navigation resulted in recommendations to both regulatory
bodies, technique providers, oil companies and ship owners. (See CREATING NEWS of October 2006)
Application of low sulphur fuel, advising speed control, selective catalytic reduction and particulate matter
filter were found to be the most suitable solutions to improve the environmental performance of inland
navigation.
All solutions mentioned are applied in the Cleanest Ship project, a joint project of CREATING and energy
company BP. Lasting one year from November 2007, this demonstration project will show how inland
waterway vessels can optimise their fuel efficiency and reduce harmful emissions.
The demonstration is carried out on the motor vessel ‘Victoria’, owned by BP Shipping. The vessel is
managed by Verenigde Tankrederij (VT) and on long term charter to BP Marine Lubricants. She is operating
in the Port of Rotterdam and Antwerp areas.
The emission reduction results,

including a comparison with road
transport, will be monitored and
presented on a regular basis on
Fuel consumption and NOX emissions

are directly measured; CO2 and SOX
emissions are calculated from fuel
consumption, whereas PM emissions
are evaluated using the emission
reduction potential estimated on the
test stand. The latter is done because
accurate measurement of PM
emissions at service conditions is very
difficult.
Low sulphur fuel
The m/v ‘Victoria’ uses low sulphur fuel equal to road standard diesel fuel
(EN 590), supplied by energy company BP.
Combustion of low sulphur fuel is a precondition for application of particulate
matter filters (soot filters) and for efficient reduction of SOX emissions, which
are directly related to the sulphur content of the fuel used.
PM filter and SCR Catalyst During operation, soot particles are retained in the
filter. As soon as the regeneration temperature is
The Nauticlean S system, developed and built by reached, the soot is burned off without residue. Due
Hug Engineering, encompasses a PM (soot) filter to the catalytic coating, the regenerating temperature
and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst in is around 450 °C. The filter burns itself clean without
the same reactor. The filter is equipped with a diesel requiring auxiliary energy. The full-flow regeneration
full-flow regenerative burner. burner system ensures independent and reliable
regeneration of the filter even at low exhaust gas
Selective catalytic reduction is a technique for temperatures and in long low-load and idling phases.
efficient removal of NOX emissions by means of
injecting a reducing agent into the exhaust gas. The
Nauticlean S system uses ammonia to reduce
nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide to nitrogen
and water, which is injected as urea (33 % solution).
For PM removal catalytically coated silicon carbide

(SiC) particulate matter filters are used, consisting of
several honeycombs made of micro fibres.
Advising speed control
The Advising Tempomaat (ATM), developed and supplied by Techno Fysica (NL), is a system enabling an
economically optimised operation of a vessel. The core of the system is a computer programme advising the
skipper on the most economical combination of route and speed, enabling the vessel to arrive on time with a
most efficient use of fuel, leading to reduction of fuel consumption and emissions.
The ATM, where the advised fuel settings are realised manually, is the successor of the Tempomaat which
automatically adjusted the vessel speed, without giving advice.
Emission reduction expected
NOx PM FC CO2 SOx
Advising Tempomaat -7% -7% -7% -7% -7%

Low sulphur fuel
(EN 590, max. 10 ppm S)
SCR (selective catalytic
-85% none none none none
reduction)
PM filter (soot filter) none -95% +2% +2% +2%
By using the Advising Tempomaat, fuel consumption (FC) may be reduced by up to 15 % for longer
distances. For this demonstration project, however, a moderate reduction is assumed. This is due to the
small operational area of the vessel and frequent manoeuvring in harbours.
The value for the PM filter also includes the SCR effect on PM reduction.
GENERAL INFORMATION ON CREATING
CREATING is a research project within the 6th Framework Programme (FP6) of the European Commission,
comprising 23 partners from 9 European countries. Its objective is to stimulate waterborne transport in an
economical way and improve its competitive position versus road transport.
LOGISTIC INNOVATION
Development of innovative logistic concepts is a key issue in the CREATING project. Analysis of a large
number of cargo flows eventually has led to four new logistic concepts, described below.
Biomass Supplier
Sailing area: Finnish Lakes
A Finnish power plant is preparing to build a new installation which will be
fuelled by biomass: wood chips and peat. CREATING designed an inland
vessel with an advanced pneumatic loading and unloading installation. In
view of the high energy demand in winter, the vessel has a special
propulsion installation, enabling it also to navigate in ice conditions.
The feasibility study turned out that using such inland barges will save at
least ¼ 400,000 a year.
Banana Carrier
Sailing area: River Rhine
Bananas are transported from seaport to hinterland by truck,
despite the availability of the ‘water highway’ Rhine.
CREATING considered three waterborne transport concepts:
• a dedicated inland reefer, suitable for pallet transport
• a pushing unit with two barges for pallet transport
• a vessel for transport of refrigerated containers
Eventually a dedicated inland reefer was chosen as the best
viable concept for the concrete case.
Roll on / Roll off Vessel For the Danube a shallow draft very large
Sailing area: River Danube Ro/Ro vessel has been developed, which
can substantially improve the existing
Ro/Ro services between various Danube
terminals.
To enable feasibility calculations for
different Ro-Ro cargo mixtures a uniform
“loading unit” was developed: Equivalent
Semi Trailer or ESTR.
Chemical Carrier The CREATING study has led to a new

Sailing area: Dutch canals conceptual design of inland tankers:
The challenge was to design a small tanker to transport
special products, with waterway restrictions determining the
main dimensions. The proposed concept completely satisfies
the prescribed rules and indicates the highest standards with
regard to active and passive safety aspects.
Conventional and optimized tank cross section
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The CREATING research on environmental impact of inland navigation has been focused on the present
performance of inland vessels regarding pollutant emissions to air and on solutions to improve this.
The following main topics were subject to research:

• Impact of diesel engine emissions on human health and environment
• Current and future emission standards with relevance to inland navigation
• The state of the art of emission characteristics in inland navigation
• Short- and mid-term solutions for improving the emission characteristics in inland navigation
• Long-term solutions for improving the emission characteristics or eliminating emissions to air
small Chemical Carrier
SAFETY
Bio mass carrier
VL Roro Carrier
Banana Carrier
All ship designs were evaluated on their potential to improve safety.
ECDIS with AIS overlay The active safety level is assessed from the manoeuvring devices
2nd VHF
Height indicator incorporated in the designs together with a proposed set of navigation
windspeed & -direction indicator
Closed Circuit TV equipment, best suited for the particular trade.
Climate control
Motion indicator
2nd radar (fore mast)
twin azipods A similar approach was chosen for the structural, passive safety. An estimate
triple propeller/rudder
tube-type bowthruster was made of the effectiveness of the proposed structure, relative to “normal”
4-channel bowthruster
additional crashworthiness
structural designs. Alternative solutions have been proposed as far as they
are feasible within the design constraints.
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
The reasons for choosing or promoting a certain way of transporting goods depend on a multitude of factors.
Shippers will be interested in reliable logistics and low cost, while authorities are in general more concerned
with relieving congestion and minimizing the environmental impact of transport in general.
CREATING developed a multi-criteria decision aiding methodology that can translate environmental,
economical, logistic and safety data into a single performance indicator: the Sustainable Transport
Performance Indicator or STPI.
The content of the publication herein is the sole responsibility of the

For more information please contact: publishers and it does not necessarily represent the views expressed
by the European Commission or its services. While the information
CREATING Project Bureau contained in the documents is believed to be accurate, the authors(s)
Vasteland 12e or any other participant in the CREATING consortium make no
NL-3011 BL Rotterdam warranty of any kind with regard to this material including, but not
limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a
particular purpose. Neither the CREATING Consortium nor any of its
Internet: www.creating.nu members, their officers, employees or agents shall be responsible or
E-mail: info@creating.nu liable in negligence or otherwise howsoever in respect of any
inaccuracy or omission herein.
PROJECT PARTNERS CLEANEST SHIP

UK BP (owner of m/v ‘Victoria’ and supplier of low sulphur fuel during one year)
A Via Donau
CH Hug Engineering
D MTU Detroit Diesel
NL Bitfactory
NL Breko shipyard
NL DLD - Dutch Logistic Development
NL Lloyd’s Register EMEA
NL Soottech
NL Techno Fysica
NL Verenigde Tankrederij (VT)
NL VNSI - Netherlands’ Shipbuilding Industry Association
NL Yara Industrial
Posters presented at the 29th Duisburger Kolloquium in Duisburg, Germany, 2008

____________________________________________________________________________
HOW TO IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF INLAND

NAVIGATION
INTRODUCTION
Inland navigation is known as a safe and environmentally friendly transport mode. Due to its low share (of about 2 %) of total traffic energy
consumption (road, rail and inland navigation), its contribution to global total traffic emissions is regarded as almost insignificant. However,
compared with maritime navigation, it has to fulfill much stricter emission regulations. Inland navigation faces strong competition with road and
rail transport, demanding superiority in environmental friendliness as competitive advantage.
Regarding emissions to the air related to tkm, especially with respect to emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2 (carbon-dioxide), the performan-
ce of inland vessels is outstanding compared with road transport (approximately 3 up to 7 times better). The same holds for CO (carbon mono-
xide) and HC (hydro carbon) emissions.
0,6
CCNR I
(2002, vessels)
LEGISLATION – SULPHUR CONTENT OF FUEL,
NOX AND PM EMISSIONS
0,5
SOX (sulphur oxide) emissions are directly related to the sulphur
content of the fuel. For inland navigation, the maximum sulphur
PM emissions [g/kWh]
EURO I
0,4 (1993, trucks) content of gas oil is limited to 0.1 % since January 2008 (Directive
1999/32/EC). Starting from January 2010, this sulphur content
0,3
EU Stage III A limitation will be extended to all marine fuels used by inland vessels
CCNR II
(2007, vessels)
(2009, vessels) and ships at berth in community ports (Directive 2005/33/EC), yet still
0,2 EURO V CCNR III up to 100 times higher than the one of fuel used in road transport
(2009, trucks) ( ~ 2012, vessels) EURO II
EU Stage IV (1998, trucks)
today. The introduction of emission limits for road transport since the
CCNR IV (~ 2012, vessels) EURO III
0,1
(~2016, ~US Tier IV (2001, trucks)
early 1990s has led to a significant reduction of the pollutant
vessels) (2016, vessels) EURO IV emissions of NOX (nitrogen oxide) and PM (particulate matter) on
US-EPA (2006, trucks)
0
(2010, trucks)
road. For inland navigation, such strict emission limits are still
EURO1 VI
0
(EC proposal,
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 missing. Consequently, the superiority in the environmental
NOx emissions [g/kWh]
~2012, trucks) performance of inland vessels has become smaller in this regard, and
with the introduction of EURO V and EURO VI limits, new trucks may
Emission standards for road transport and inland navigation
emit even significantly less NOX and PM per tkm than inland vessels.
EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES Emission reduction potential of different

Taking into consideration the developments in the emission legislation described above, emission reduction techniques
compliance with EU transport policy and environmental friendliness as a competitive NOx PM FC CO2 SOx
factor of increasing significance, within the FP6 EU project CREATING (www.creating.nu) After treatment
techniques
possible solutions for improvement of the environmental performance of inland vessels SCR (selective catalytic
reduction)
-81% -35% -7.5% -7.5% -7.5%
were examined comprising internal engine improvements (exhaust gas recirculation – PMF (particulate matter
none -85% +2% +2% +2%
filter)
EGR, advanced injection systems, inlet air humidification, in-cylinder water injection and Drive management
systems
homogeneous charge compression ignition - HCCI), exhaust gas after treatment (diesel ATM (advising
-10% -10% -10% -10% -10%
tempomaat)
oxidation catalyst, selective catalytic reduction – SCR, particulate matter filter - PMF, Diesel fuel quality /
substitutes
scrubbing of exhaust gas and electrostatic precipitation), higher diesel fuel quality (low BD (bio diesel) +10% -30% +15% -65% ~-100%
sulphur fuel - LSF), alternative fuels (biodiesel - BD, biodiesel blend - BDB, diesel-water BDB (bio diesel blend, 20
+2% -6% +3% -13% ~-20%
emulsion, natural gas and hydrogen), alternative combustion engines (natural gas engine % BD)
LSF (low sulphur fuel) none -17% none none ~-100%
– NGE), new propulsion and auxiliary systems (diesel-electric propulsion and fuel cells)
New engine technologies
as well as electronic drive management systems (advising tempomaat – ATM, River
NGE (natural gas engine) -98.5% -97.5% +4.5% -10% -100%
Information Services – RIS).
0,016
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE COMPARED
0,014
WITH ROAD TRANSPORT
EURO III (2001)
The comparison is performed for a DDSG -Steinklasse motor cargo
0,012 EURO III truck (2001) vessel pushing a Europe II B barge, sailing from Passau (D) to Vidin
EURO IV truck (2006)
EURO V truck (2009) (BG) and back (2884 km), and trucks in service complying with the
PM em issions [g/tkm ]
0,01
MCV + barge: CCNR I (2002),

EURO VI truck (~2012, EC proposal)
basic case (M1) = CCNR I (2002)
respective EURO standards. For the basic case (M1) the vessel
0,008
without em. red. techn. SCR (M2)
SCR + ATM (M3)
engine complies with CCNR I standard and no emission reduction
MCV + barge: SCR
M1
SCR + ATM + BD (M4) techniques are applied.
0,006 SCR + ATM + BDB (M5)
Truck EURO V (2009)

SCR + ATM + LSF (M6) Application of SCR to the vessel will give already significant
SCR + ATM + LSF + PMF (M7)
0,004 M3
M2
NGE (M8) superiority of the vessel with respect to NOX emissions and equality
M5 M4 EURO V (2009) EURO IV (2006)
M6
with respect to PM emissions, compared with the EURO V truck.
0,002
EURO VI (~2012) Application of SCR, low sulphur fuel (LSF), particulate matter filter
M8
0
M7
(PMF) and advising tempomaat (ATM) will lead to clear superiority of
0 0,1 0,2 0,3
NOx emissions [g/tkm]
0,4 0,5 0,6
inland navigation with respect to both, NOX and PM emissions,
MCV + barge:
SCR + LSF + PMF + ATM compared with the EURO V truck, and a slightly better environmental
performance, compared with the EURO VI truck. The most significant
PM and NOX emissions of inland navigation and road reduction of PM results from the application of the particulate matter
transport filter requiring low sulphur fuel (maximum sulphur content of 10 ppm).
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
THE CLEANEST SHIP

INTRODUCTION
Application of low sulphur fuel, advising speed control, selective catalytic reduction and particulate matter filter were found to be the most
suitable solutions to improve the environmental performance of inland navigation. All solutions mentioned are applied in the Cleanest Ship
project, a joint project of CREATING and energy company BP. Lasting one year from November 2007, this demonstration project will show
how inland waterway vessels can optimise their fuel efficiency and reduce harmful emissions.

The demonstration is carried out on the motor vessel ‘Victoria’, owned
by BP Shipping. The vessel is managed by Verenigde Tankrederij (VT)
and on long term charter to BP Marine Lubricants. She is operating in
the Port of Rotterdam and Antwerp areas. The emission reduction
results, including a comparison with road transport, are being
monitored and presented on a regular basis at www.cleanestship.eu.
Fuel consumption and NOX emissions are directly measured; CO2 and
SOX emissions are calculated from fuel consumption, whereas PM
emissions are evaluated using the emission reduction potential
estimated on the test stand. The latter is done because accurate
measurement of PM emissions at service conditions is very difficult.
EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNIQUES

The emission reduction techniques utilized are the advising
tempomaat, low sulphur fuel equal to road standard EN 590, selective
catalytic reduction and PM filters.
The Cleanest Ship MV Victoria.
Advising tempomaat
As advising tempomaat a system developed by Techno Fysica bv (NL) Emission reduction expected. For the advising tempomaat, the fuel
is used. The core of the ATM is formed by a computer programme consumption (FC) may be reduced by up to 15%. For the
advising the skipper on the most economical combination of route and demonstrator a moderate value is assumed in accordance with the
speed, enabling the vessel to arrive on time with a most efficient use of operational area. The value for the particulate matter filter includes
fuel leading to a reduction of fuel consumption and emissions. also the effect of SCR on PM reduction.
The Nauticlean S system

NOx PM FC CO2 SOx
The Nauticlean S system of Hug engineering consists of two reactors
with a selective-catalytic-reduction catalyst and a PM filter, whereby ATM (advising tempomaat) -7% -7% -7% -7% -7%
the PM filter is equipped with a diesel full-flow regenerative burner. The
LSF (low sulphur fuel, EN 590,
Nauticlean S system uses ammonia to reduce nitrogen monoxide and 10 ppm)
nitrogen dioxide to nitrogen and water, which is injected as urea (33 % SCR (selective catalytic
solution). reduction)
For efficient PM removal catalytically coated silicon carbide (SiC) PM PMF (particulate matter filter) none -95% +2% +2% +2%
filters are used. As soon as the regeneration temperature (450 °C) is
reached, the soot in the filters is burned off without residue. Total emission reduction -86% -96% -5% -5% -99.5%
PROJECT PARTNERS
BP (UK) Bitfactory (NL) Techno Fysica (NL)
via donau (A) Breko shipyard (NL) Verenigde Tankrederij – VT (NL)
Hug Engineering (CH) DLD - Dutch Logistic Development (NL) VNSI - Netherlands’ Shipbuilding Industry Association (NL)
MTU Detroit Diesel (D) Lloyd’s Register EMEA (NL) Yara Industrial (NL)
Soottech (NL)
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
CREATING
INTRODUCTION
A major part of maritime cargo, for instance maritime containers, is nowadays transported to the hinterland via inland waterways. Continental
cargo, however, is mainly transported by trucks. The ever increasing transport flows, road congestions and air pollution require the exploration
of other transport solutions. Waterborne transport is safe, reliable and has by far the lowest fuel consumption per ton/kilometre. Even more
important: the main European waterways could easily absorb a multiple of the present waterborne transport volume. CREATING – Concepts
to Reduce Environmental impact and Attain optimal Transport performance by Inland NaviGation (www.creating.nu) - is a research
project within the 6th Framework Programme (FP6) of the European Commission, comprising 23 partners from 9 European countries. Its
objective is to stimulate waterborne transport in an economical way and improve its competitive position versus road transport.
LOGISTIC INNOVATION Societal Demands

Development of innovative logistic concepts was a key issue in the
CREATING project. Analysis of a large number of cargo flows led to Environment:
four new logistic concepts: Reduction of harmful
exhausts like NOX and
Biomass Supplier for the Finnish Lakes particulate matter (soot) More Transport Via Water
A Finnish power plant located at the Finnish lakes is preparing to build
a new installation which will be fuelled by biomass: wood chips and
peat. An inland vessel being able to operate also in ice conditions was Mobility:
designed. Less road congestion Strengthening the position of Inland
Ship Owners
Banana Carrier for the Rhine
With respect to banana transport on the Rhine, three waterborne
transport concepts were considered: Dangerous substances:
Safe transport with Improving the competitive edge of the
• a dedicated inland reefer, suitable for pallet transport minimized risk for people inland ship owner by developing chain
• a pushing unit with two barges for pallet transport and environment optimized vessel concepts with an
optimised environmental performance
• a vessel for transport of refrigerated containers
A dedicated inland reefer was chosen as the best viable concept for
the concrete case.
RoRo Vessel for the Danube Project backround
For the Danube a shallow draft very large RoRo vessel was
developed, which can substantially improve the existing RoRo services
• WP 2 Innovative Logistic Concepts, efficiency,
between various Danube terminals. To enable feasibility calculations economics
for different RoRo cargo mixtures a uniform “loading unit” was
established: Equivalent Semi Trailer or ESTR.
Economics/ Dangerous
Chemical Carrier for the Dutch canals • WP 3
environment cargoes
The challenge was to design a small tanker to transport special Innovative
Vessel • WP 5 WP 8
products, with waterway restrictions determining the main dimensions.
Concepts Ship Safety
The proposed concept completely satisfies the prescribed rules and Hydro- Analysis
indicates the highest standards with regard to active and passive dynamics
I/O
safety aspects. The CREATING study led to a new conceptual design
of inland tankers. • WP 6 • WP 9
Environ- Safety
mental Measures
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Impact
The research has been focused on the present performance of inland
vessels regarding pollutant emissions to air and on solutions to
improve this. The following main topics were subject to research: • WP 4 Performance Assessment
• Impact of diesel engine emissions on human health and
environment
• WP 7 Demonstrators
• Current and future emission standards with relevance to inland
navigation
• The state of the art of emission characteristics in inland • WP 10 Dissemination
navigation
• Short- mid- and long term solutions for improving the emission Main topics of the various work packages
characteristics in inland navigation or eliminating emissions to air
SAFETY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

All ship designs were evaluated on their potential to improve safety. The reasons for choosing or promoting a certain way of
The active safety level was assessed from the manoeuvring devices transporting goods depend on a multitude of factors. Shippers
incorporated in the designs together with a proposed set of navigation will be interested in reliable logistics and low cost, while
equipment, best suited for the particular trade. A similar approach was authorities are in general more concerned with relieving
chosen for the structural, passive safety. An estimate was made of the congestion and minimizing the environmental impact of transport
effectiveness of the proposed structure, relative to “normal” structural in general. CREATING developed a multi-criteria decision aiding
designs. Alternative solutions were proposed as far as they were methodology that can translate environmental, economical,
considered feasible within the design constraints. logistics and safety data into a single performance indicator: the
Sustainable Transport Performance Indicator or STPI.
Acknowledgement: The majority of the text has been provided by Bert de Vries from VNSI (Netherlands’ Shipbuilding). His contributions are gratefully acknowledged.
____________________________________________________________________________
30th Motorship Propulsion and Emissions Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2008

The 30th Motorship Propulsion and Emissions Conference 2008
Gothenburg, 20th – 22nd May, 2008.
HOW TO IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF

INLAND NAVIGATION
Schweighofer, J.
via donau, Austria
juha.schweighofer@via-donau.org
Blaauw, H. G.
Shipping Projects Bureau/Dutch Logistic Development bv, the Netherlands
blaauw@dld.nl
Smyth, M.D.
BP Shipping Ltd, UK
mike.smyth@bp.com
ABSTRACT
Inland navigation is known as a safe and environmentally friendly transport mode. Compared
with maritime navigation and short sea shipping, it has to fulfill much stricter emission
regulations. Inland navigation faces strong competition with road and rail transport,
demanding superiority in environmental friendliness as competitive advantage. Therefore,
inland navigation has to deal with the challenge of introducing highly efficient technologies for
the improvement of its environmental performance being applicable to small spaces, in
contrast to seagoing vessels where generally enough space is available.
Focussed on emissions to the air, the environmental performance of inland navigation and
means for its improvement are discussed in the light of results of the EU project CREATING
(www.creating.nu) and the Cleanest Ship project (www.cleanestship.eu).
The legislation with respect to exhaust emissions in waterborne and road transport is
outlined briefly.
Different emission reduction techniques and alternative fuels are discussed with respect to
their emission reduction potential and applicability to inland navigation.
The environmental performance of inland navigation with respect to emissions to the air is
compared with road transport and the achievable compliance with emission standards is
discussed.
The application of advising tempomaat, low sulphur fuel equal to road standard EN 590,
selective catalytic reduction and particulate matter filter is found to be the most suitable
solution to improve the environmental performance of inland navigation. These systems are
utilized in the demonstrator the Cleanest Ship, being briefly outlined in this paper.
INTRODUCTION
inland navigation has to deal with the challenge of introducing highly efficient technologies for
the improvement of its environmental performance being applicable to small spaces, in
contrast to seagoing vessels where generally enough space is available.
Regarding emissions to the air, especially with respect to emissions of the greenhouse gas
CO2 (carbon-dioxide), the performance of inland vessels is outstanding compared with road
transport. On average, the CO2 emissions of an inland vessel are only about 1/3 of the ones
a truck emits per ton-kilometre (tkm) due to a higher energy efficiency. Also with respect to
CO (carbon monoxide) and HC (hydro carbon) emissions per tkm, inland navigation is
significantly superior to road transport. However, SOX emissions associated with inland
navigation are actually much higher than the ones resulting from road transport, even when
related to tkm (today, these emissions are up to 60 times higher) due to the much higher
sulphur content of fuel used.
The introduction of stricter emission limits for road transport since the early 1990s has led to
a significant reduction of the pollutant emissions of NOX (nitrogen oxide) and PM (particulate
matter) on road. For inland navigation, such strict emission limits are still missing.
Consequently, the superiority in the environmental performance of inland vessels compared
with trucks has become smaller in this regard, and with the introduction of EURO V and
EURO VI limits for road transport in 2009 and 2010 (proposed by the German Federal
Environmental Agency, UBA), respectively, these new trucks may emit even significantly less
NOX and PM per tkm than inland vessels.
Within the EU project CREATING (www.creating.nu), means for the improvement of the
environmental performance of inland navigation were investigated [1,2], and the practical
implementation of advising tempomaat, low sulphur fuel equal to road standard EN 590,
selective catalytic reduction and PM filter for emission reduction is being demonstrated in the
project the Cleanest Ship (www.cleanestship.eu).
LEGISLATION REGARDING SULPHUR CONTENT OF FUEL, NOX AND PM EMISSIONS
SOX (sulphur oxide) emissions are directly related to the sulphur content of the fuel. For
inland navigation, in accordance with Directive 1999/32/EC, the maximum sulphur content of
fuel is limited to 0.2 %. Starting from January 2010, this sulphur content limitation will be
reduced to 0.1 % in accordance with Directive 2005/33/EC, yet still up to 100 times higher
than the sulphur content of fuel used in road transport today. Therefore, the SOX emissions
associated with inland navigation are actually much higher than the ones resulting from road
transport, even when related to tkm (today, these emissions are up to 60 times higher).
The introduction of emission limits for road transport since the early 1990s has led to a
significant reduction of the pollutant emissions of NOX (nitrogen oxide) and PM (particulate
matter) on road. For inland navigation, such strict emission limits are still missing, Fig. 1.
Environmental Agency, UBA), respectively, these new trucks may emit even significantly less
NOX and PM per tkm than inland vessels, Fig. 2. The dates denote when the regulations are
considered to be fully in force.
Additionally, truck engines are replaced on average after 5 years of operation. This implies
that only five years after the introduction of a new emission limit, the average truck fleet
complies with this limit. When a vessel engine is replaced, its average age accounts for
approximately 20 years or even more, thus, it will also take much longer in order to achieve
compliance with new emission standards compared with trucks, e.g. the majority of inland
vessels will comply with CCNR II (Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine) and EU
Stage IIIA only by approximately 2025 if no stricter standards are introduced in the very near
future and engines already in service stay exempt from the new regulations.
0,6 CCNR I
(2002, vessels)
0,5
PM emissions [g/kWh]
EURO I
0,4 (1993, trucks)
0,3 CCNR II /
EU-Stage IIIA
(2008/2007, vessels)
0,2
EURO V
(2009, trucks) EURO III EURO II
~ CCNR III / (2001, trucks) (1996, trucks)
0,1 EU Stage IV
US-EPA (~ 2012, vessels)
EURO IV
(2010, trucks)
(2006, trucks)
0
0 EURO VI 2 4 6 8 10
(UBA proposal,
2010, trucks) NOx emissions [g/kWh]
Figure 1. Emission standards for inland waterway and road transport.
EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
Taking into consideration the developments in the emission legislation described above,
compliance with EU transport policy and environmental friendliness as a competitive factor of
increasing significance, within CREATING possible solutions for improvement of the
environmental performance of inland vessels were examined. These solutions comprise
internal engine improvements (exhaust gas recirculation – EGR, advanced injection systems,
inlet air humidification, in-cylinder water injection and homogeneous charge compression
ignition - HCCI), exhaust gas after treatment (diesel oxidation catalyst, selective catalytic
reduction – SCR, particulate matter filter - PMF, scrubbing of exhaust gas and electrostatic
precipitation), higher diesel fuel quality (low sulphur fuel - LSF), alternative fuels (biodiesel -
BD, biodiesel blend - BDB, diesel-water emulsion, natural gas and hydrogen), alternative
combustion engines (natural gas engine – NGE), new propulsion and auxiliary systems
(diesel-electric propulsion and fuel cells) as well as electronic drive management systems
(advising tempomaat – ATM, River Information Services – RIS).
The emission reduction potential associated with the application of most significant emission
reduction techniques for the reduction of NOX, PM, CO2 and SOX emissions to engines
complying with CCNR I standard is presented in Table 1. The application of selective
catalytic reduction and particulate matter filter will have the most significant impact on the
reduction of NOX as well as PM emissions. For the proper application of particulate matter
filters, the usage of low sulphur fuel (10 ppm) is imperative. Fuel consumption may be
effectively reduced by the application of drive management systems, e.g. the advising
tempomaat, giving information about the most economical speed of the vessel, thus leading
to reduced emissions. Using biodiesel will lead to a significant reduction of CO2 and SOX
emissions. However, this will be associated with increased NOX emissions and fuel
consumption making it necessary to apply additional techniques for NOX and PM reduction.
Engines already in service may be damaged when run on pure biodiesel, and the availability
of biodiesel will not be sufficient in order to satisfy the energy demand of the total traffic
sector. The SOX emissions are directly related to the sulphur content of the fuel, and
reducing the sulphur content of fuel will lead to reduced SOX and PM emissions. Usage of
low sulphur fuel is the precondition for the application of several emission reduction
techniques e.g. particulate matter filter, exhaust gas recirculation, NOX adsorber, and,
conditionally, diesel oxidation catalyst.
Table 1. Changes in mass emissions with respect to the application of different emission-
reduction techniques compared with the basic case complying with CCNR I where no
emission-reduction technique is used. FC means changes in fuel consumption.
NOx PM FC CO2 SOx

After treatment
techniques
-81% -35% -7.5% -7.5% -7.5%
reduction)
PMF (particulate matter
none -85% +2% +2% +2%
filter)
Drive management
systems
ATM (advising
-10% -10% -10% -10% -10%
tempomaat)
Diesel fuel quality /
substitutes
BD (bio diesel) +10% -30% +15% -65% ~-100%
BDB (bio diesel blend, 20
+2% -6% +3% -13% ~-20%
% BD)
LSF (low sulphur fuel) none -17% none none ~-100%
New engine technologies
NGE (natural gas engine) -98.5% -97.5% +4.5% -10% -100%
According to a TNO (NL) study [3], 98 % of current engines may be run on low sulphur fuel
(EN 590) and new engines require a fuel with a sulphur content of 50 ppm or less. Using
natural gas as fuel will significantly reduce NOX, PM and SOX emissions. However,
application of natural gas engines to inland navigation is associated with very large storage
spaces for tanks, possibly resulting in insufficient cruising ranges, non-existing rules for
technical certification, and lack of adapted tax regulations and infrastructure on inland
waterways, demanding sorrowful feasibility studies for adequate application of natural gas as
fuel to inland navigation.
For reduction of CO and HC emissions, the application of a diesel oxidation catalyst is
recommended.
Techniques with very high emission reduction potential are homogeneous charge
compression ignition and usage of fuel cells. However, these techniques require still major
efforts in development and will not be available for general application to inland navigation in
the near future.
Furthermore, wet scrubbers and electro-static percipators require too much space for
meaningful application to inland navigation.
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF INLAND NAVIGATION COMPARED WITH

ROAD TRANSPORT AND ACHIEVABLE COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION
STANDARDS
The comparison is performed for a DDSG -Steinklasse motor cargo vessel pushing a Europe
II B barge, sailing from Passau (D) to Vidin (BG) and back (2884 km), and trucks in service
complying with the respective EURO standards. For the basic case (M1, BC) the vessel
engine complies with CCNR I standard and no emission reduction techniques are applied.
The PM and NOX emissions in g/tkm associated with the basic case (M1) are significantly
higher than the ones of a truck complying with EURO V, Fig. 2. Application of selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) to the vessel will give already significant superiority of the vessel
with respect to NOX emissions and equality with respect to PM emissions, compared with
the EURO V truck. Application of selective catalytic reduction, low sulphur fuel (LSF),
particulate matter filter (PMF) and advising tempomaat (ATM) will lead to clear superiority of
inland navigation with respect to both, NOX and PM emissions, compared with the EURO V
truck, and equal environmental performance, compared with the EURO VI truck. The most
significant reduction of PM results from the application of the particulate matter filter requiring
low sulphur fuel.
0,016
0,014
EURO III (2001)
0,012
EURO III truck (2001)
0,01 EURO V truck (2009)
PM emissions [g/tkm]
EURO VI truck (2010, UBA proposal)

without em. red. techn.
SCR (M2)
0,008
MCV + barge: SCR SCR + ATM (M3)
SCR + ATM + BD (M4)
M1 SCR + ATM + BDB (M5)
0,006 SCR + ATM + LSF (M6)
Truck EURO V (2009) SCR + ATM + LSF + PMF (M7)
M2 NGE (M8)
0,004 M3
M5 M4 EURO V (2009) EURO IV (2006)
M6
0,002
MCV + barge: SCR + LSF +
M8 PMF + ATM
M7
0
0 EURO VI 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
(2010)
Truck EURO VI (2010, UBA proposal)
Figure 2. Emission comparison in g/tkm between motor cargo vessel pushing a barge and
trucks in service, considering different emission reduction techniques.
Application of selective catalytic reduction, particulate matter filter and low sulphur fuel to a
CCNR I – vessel engine will lead to compliance with EURO V and CCNR III standard, Fig. 3.
Compliance with EURO VI standard may be achieved by either the application of similar
technology as it is used in road transport, including respective fuels, or the introduction of
new engine technologies like homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) and natural
gas engines (NGE) to inland navigation. In Fig. 3, Euro truck and CCNR vessel denote the
emission limits in g/kWh prescribed by the respective emission standards for road and inland
waterway transport (IWT). Generally, vessel engines complying with CCNR I (BC) show
much better performance than required by the standard with respect to PM emissions.
Inland navigation is in danger to loose its position as more environmentally friendly transport
mode than road transport in terms of NOX and PM emissions in g/tkm. For emissions in
g/kWh, inland navigation performs already worse than road transport. In order to achieve
superior environmental performance of inland navigation to road transport with respect to all
emissions (NOX, PM, CO2, SOX, CO, HC), the very first step to be taken has to be the
introduction of LSF (EN 590) to inland navigation.
Figure 3. Comparison of vessel-engine emissions with emissions corresponding to limit

values of standards for road transport (EURO) and inland navigation (CCNR).
THE CLEANEST SHIP
Figure 4. The Cleanest Ship MV Victoria.

Application of selective catalytic reduction, particulate matter filters, low sulphur fuel and
advising tempomaat was found to be the most effective and practicable solution to improve
the environmental performance of inland navigation. These systems will be implemented in a
demonstrator, The Cleanest Ship, confirming the general applicability of these systems to
inland navigation and the emission reduction potential evaluated. The demonstration project
is carried out on the motor vessel ‘Victoria’, owned by BP shipping, managed by the
Verenigde Tankrederij (VT) and operating in the Port of Rotterdam area. The demonstration
was launched officially in Rotterdam on November 20th, 2007, and it will last one year. Fuel
consumption and NOX emissions are directly measured; CO2 and SOX emissions are
calculated from the fuel consumption, whereas PM emissions are evaluated using the
emission reduction potential estimated on the test stand, due to difficult accurate
measurement of PM emissions at service conditions.
The results with respect to the reduction of CO2, SOX, NOX and PM emissions, including a
comparison with road transport, are monitored and presented to the public on a regular basis
at www.cleanestship.eu.
Emission reduction techniques
The emission reduction techniques utilized are the advising tempomaat, low sulphur fuel
equal to road standard EN 590, selective catalytic reduction and PM filters. As advising
tempomaat a system developed by Techno Fysica bv (NL) is used. The selective-catalytic-
reduction catalyst and diesel particulate filters are implemented in the Nauticlean S system
comprising a single reactor for NOX and PM removal, developed and built by Hug
Engineering (D).
The advising tempomaat
The advising tempomaat (ATM) is a system enabling an economically optimised operation of

a vessel.
economical combination of route and speed, enabling the vessel to arrive on time with a
most efficient use of fuel leading to a reduction of fuel consumption and emissions. The ATM,
where the advised fuel settings are realised manually, is the successor of the tempomaat
which did automatically adjust the speed of the vessel, without giving advice.
Low sulphur fuel
The motor vessel ‘Victoria’ is operated with low sulphur fuel equal to road standard (diesel
fuel EN 590). Usage of low sulphur fuel is a precondition for the application of PM filters and
efficient reduction of PM and SOX emissions as these emissions are related to the sulphur
content of the fuel used.
The Nauticlean S system of Hug engineering consists of two reactors with a selective-
catalytic-reduction catalyst and a PM filter, whereby the PM filter is equipped with a diesel
full-flow regenerative burner.
Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is a technique for efficient removal of NOX emissions by
means of injecting a reducing agent into the exhaust gas. The Nauticlean S system uses
ammonia to reduce nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide to nitrogen and water, which is
injected as urea (33 % solution).
For efficient PM removal catalytically coated silicon carbide (SiC) PM filters are used. These
filters consist of several honeycombs made of micro fibres. During operation, the soot
particles are retained in the filter. As soon as the regeneration temperature is reached, the
soot in the filters is burned off without residue. Due to the catalytic coating, the regenerating
temperature is around 450 °C and the filter burns i tself clean without requiring auxiliary
energy.
Reduction of emissions expected
NOx PM FC CO2 SOx
ATM (advising tempomaat) -7% -7% -7% -7% -7%
LSF (low sulphur fuel, EN 590, 10

ppm)
reduction)
PMF (particulate matter filter) none -95% +2% +2% +2%
For the advising tempomaat, the fuel consumption (FC) may be reduced by 5 up to 10%. For
the demonstrator a moderate value is assumed due to the limited effect resulting from the
operational area of the vessel. The value for the particulate matter filter includes also the
effect of SCR on PM reduction.
Impact of CREATING and the Cleanest Ship project
The Cleanest Ship project contributes directly to the implementation of EC transport policy,
particularly, with respect to the implementation of the Action Programme NAIADES,
COM(2006) 6 final, which requires the improvement of logistics efficiency, as well as
environmental and safety performance of inland waterway transport.
As outcome of CREATING and a TNO study on the applicability of low sulphur fuel with a
maximum sulphur content of 10 ppm to existing inland vessel engines [3], at the Round
Table of the CCNR (Central Commission for the Navigation on the Rhine), consensus was
achieved about introducing fuel of equal or similar quality to road standard for inland
navigation and lowering the sulphur content of fuel to 10 ppm in one step as soon as
possible, and the European Commission is considering the introduction of this fuel already in
2009 [4].
Considering the European inland navigation fleet, already the Rhine and Danube fleets
comprise more than 8500 motorized units. Using the example of the motor vessel ‘Victoria’,
within the Cleanest Ship project, it is shown how highly efficient emission reduction
technologies and better fuel quality can be applied to these units, leading to compliance of
the inland navigation sector with even strictest regulations of road transport, Figs. 2 and 3.
Partners involved in the demonstration project
The team of the Cleanest Ship project consists of:
4. Hug engineering for the delivery of the SCR and PM filter for the main engine
5. Hanwel (also referred to as Codinox as Soottech) for the PM filters on the generator
sets and NOX and PM measurements
11. Bit factory, for the realization of the website

REFERENCES
1. Schweighofer J. and Seiwerth P.: Environmental performance of inland navigation.

Proceedings of the European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference, Visegrád,
Hungary, June 27th-29th,2007.
2. Kampfer A. and Schweighofer J. et al.: Environmental impact of inland navigation,

CREATING Work Package 6, final report, 2006, to be released 2008.
3. Kattenwinkel H., Verbeek R. and Eijk A.: Review of potential issues for inland ship
engines when reducing gasoil sulphur level to maximum 10 ppmm. TNO Report
MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-01813, June 2007.
4. European Parliament: Press release November 26, 2007,

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/064-13598-330-11-48-
911-20071126IPR13591-26-11-2007-2007-false/default_en.htm
Zeitschrift für Binnenschifffahrt 9/2008

Schiffstechnik
Die Entwicklung der Abgasemissionen

in der Binnenschifffahrt
Zusammenfassung raten zu sein. Beispielsweise gehen in Von daher scheint es angebracht, die Si-
Die Binnenschifffahrt ist bekannt als um- Deutschland anteilsmäßig die Stickoxyd- tuation der Abgasemissionen auf den Bin-
weltfreundlicher Verkehrsträger. Auf Grund und Partikelemissionen des Straßengüter- nenwasserstraßen zu hinterfragen. Dies
des sehr geringen Anteils der Binnenschiff- verkehrs zurück, während die der Binnen- versucht der vorliegende Artikel, wobei er
fahrt am Gesamtenergieverbrauch des Ver- schifffahrt weiter ansteigen. Dies kann • zunächst die Vorschriften hinsichtlich
kehrs sind die Abgasemissionen, welche der darauf zurückgeführt werden, dass der Kraftstoffe und Schadstoffemissionen
Binnenschifffahrt zugeordnet werden kön- • im Straßenverkehr schon vor mehr als von Binnenschiffen betrachtet,
nen, relativ unbedeutend. Aufgrund ihrer zehn Jahren verordnungsrechtliche Maß- • technische Möglichkeiten zur Verringe-
Umweltfreundlichkeit findet die Binnen- nahmen getroffen wurden, die der Redu- rung der Schadstoffemissionen der Bin-
schifffahrt zunehmende politische Anerken- zierung der Schadstoffemissionen die- nenschifffahrt darstellt,
nung und Unterstützung. Die Umwelt- nen, • dann die mit den technischen Möglich-
freundlichkeit eines Verkehrsträgers stellt • die derzeit auf Binnenschiffen installier- keiten erfüllbaren Emissionsgrenzwerte
aber auch einen Wettbewerbsvorteil von zu- ten Motoren hingegen in der Mehrzahl untersucht,
nehmender Bedeutung dar, da das Umwelt- keinerlei Schadstoffemissionsstandards • die Schadstoffemissionen anschließend
bewusstsein der Bevölkerung stetig steigt. genügen. mit jenen des Straßenverkehrs vergleicht,
Mit der Einführung von immer strengeren Eine ähnliche Situation ergibt sich beim und
Abgasvorschriften für den Straßenverkehr Schwefelgehalt der Treibstoffe. Auch hier • abschließend das »Cleanest Ship« – ein
sind die entsprechenden Abgasemissionen hat der Straßenverkehr seine Hausaufgaben praktisches Beispiel für die Erfüllung
im Straßengüterverkehr drastisch gesunken, schon durch die Einführung schwefelfreier strikter Emissionsgrenzwerte in der Bin-
was für die Binnenschifffahrt nicht zutrifft, Kraftstoffe gemacht – die Binnenschifffahrt nenschifffahrt vorstellt.
da hier die meisten Motoren noch keinen ist davon aber noch einige Jahre entfernt. Interessant wäre sicherlich auch ein Ver-
Emissionsstandards genügen. In Bezug auf Die Binnenschifffahrt profitiert sicher- gleich der Schadstoffemissionen der Binnen-
wichtige Emissionen wie Stickoxide und lich von ihrer hohen Energieeffizienz, wes- schifffahrt mit denen der Eisenbahnen. Die-
Rußpartikel läuft die Binnenschifffahrt Ge- halb sie dem Straßentransport beim Kraft- ser Vergleich ist jedoch ungleich schwerer als
fahr, ihre ökologische Überlegenheit gegen- stoffverbrauch als auch bei den CO2-, der mit dem Straßenverkehr, da die von den
über dem Straßengüterverkehr einzubüßen. CO- und HC-Emissionen pro Tonnenkilo- Eisenbahnen genutzten Energieträger sehr
In diesem Artikel wird die Situation der Ab- meter (tkm) weit überlegen ist. Diese Über- heterogen sind. Zumindest scheint jedoch
gasemissionen auf den Binnenwasserstraßen legenheit ist aber nur von eingeschränkter für Deutschland feststellbar, dass das Ange-
hinterfragt. Es werden zunächst die Vor- Bedeutung, da die Emissionen der brisan- bot an »sauberer« elektrischer Energie aus
schriften hinsichtlich der Kraftstoffe und testen Schadstoffe, nämlich Stickoxyde und Wasser- und Kernkraftanlagen für die Bah-
Schadstoffemissionen von Binnenschiffen Partikel, aufgrund der im Straßenverkehr nen begrenzt ist und der Verkehrszuwachs
betrachtet, gefolgt von einer Darstellung ergriffenen technischen Maßnahmen nicht bei den Bahnen mit elektrischer Energie aus
technischer Möglichkeiten zur Verringerung diesen Gesetzmäßigkeiten folgen. den wesentlich umweltschädlicheren Kohle-
der Abgasemissionen in der Binnenschiff-
fahrt. Weiter wird untersucht, welche Emis-
sionsgrenzwerte mit den jeweiligen tech-
nischen Möglichkeiten erfüllt werden
können, und die Schadstoffemissionen des
Straßengüterverkehrs werden mit jenen der
Binnenschifffahrt verglichen. Abschließend
wird das »Cleanest Ship« – ein praktisches
Beispiel für die Erfüllung strikter Emissions-
grenzwerte in der Binnenschifffahrt – vorge-
stellt.
Einleitung
Die Binnenschifffahrt wirbt gerne für
sich mit der Feststellung, dass sie ein um-
weltfreundlicher oder sogar der umwelt-
freundlichste Verkehrsträger ist. Auch die
Politik begründet ihre Unterstützung der
Binnenschifffahrt mit deren Umwelt-
freundlichkeit. Derzeit sind aus Sicht der
Politik bestimmender Aspekt für die Um-
weltfreundlichkeit die von den an Bord der
Fahrzeuge installierten Motoren emittierten
Schadstoffe. Gerade hier scheint die Bin-
nenschifffahrt jedoch ins Hintertreffen ge-
Binnenschifffahrt – ZfB – Nr. 9 – 2008 41

Schiffstechnik
Emissionen Entstehung Auswirkungen

Kohlendioxid (CO2) Verbrennung fossiler Brennstoffe Treibhausgas
Kohlenmonoxid (CO) Unvollständige Verbrennung Gesundheitsgefährdung
Flüchtige organische Verbindungen Unvollständige Verbrennung, besonders in Autos;
Gesundheitsgefährdung; Smog
(VOCs); Kohlenwasserstoffe (HC)) Emissionen von Chemikalien, z.B. Benzin
Verbrennung in Motoren; Oxidation von Stickstoff Gesundheitsgefährdung; Versäuerung; N2O
Stickoxide (NOx)
in Brennstoffen / Luft sehr potentes Treibhausgas; Ozon; Smog
Partikel (PT) Dieselmotoren Gesundheitsgefährdung; Smog
Tabelle 1. Entstehung und Auswirkungen von Abgasemissionen im Verkehrssektor.
kraftwerken bedient werden muss. Ein der- auch in anderer Hinsicht bestimmten Qua- Offensichtlich möchte das Schifffahrtsge-
artiger Vergleich würde jedoch den Umfang litätskriterien genügen sollten, werbe deutlich machen, dass es einen subs-
dieser Arbeit sprengen. wurde die Diskussion um die Anforderungen tantiellen Beitrag zur Reduzierung der
an Kraftstoffe zunehmend komplexer. Dies Schadstoffemissionen der Binnenschiff-
Rechtsvorschriften hinsichtlich der spiegelt sich deutlich in dem Vorschlag der fahrt leisten möchte, auch wenn dies zu
Kraftstoffe von Binnenschiffen Europäischen Kommission aus dem Jahr Mehrkosten von etwa 2 bis 5 Eurocent pro
In der EU sind Kraftstoffe für Binnen- 2007 zur abermaligen Überarbeitung der Liter Kraftstoff6 führen wird.
schiffe durch die Richtlinie 1999/32/EG1 europäischen Kraftstoffrichtlinien3 wieder. Seit gut einem Jahr liegt dieser Vorschlag
reglementiert. Sie gestattet für die in der Dieser Richtlinienvorschlag war im Hin- beim Europäischen Parlament und beim
europäischen Binnenschifffahrt gebräuch- blick auf die Anforderungen an die Kraft- Ministerrat. Während sich das Parlament
lichen Gasöle einen maximalen Schwefel- stoffe für die Binnenschifffahrt auch Ge- relativ zügig über das Dossier verständigen
gehalt von genstand eines Runden Tisches der ZKR im konnte, kommen die Diskussionen im Rat
• 0,20 Massenhundertteile (oder 2000 ppm) Mai 20074. Dieser Runde Tisch vereinte die nicht zum Abschluss, was eine fristgerechte
ab dem 1. Juli 2000 und europäischen Verbände aller betroffenen Verabschiedung in Frage stellt. Die größte
• 0,10 Massenhundertteile (oder 1000 ppm) Wirtschaftszweige von den Mineralölpro- Hürde scheint dabei in den Vorgaben für
ab dem 1. Januar 2008. duzenten bis hin zum Schifffahrtsgewerbe. die angestrebte Reduzierung der Treibhaus-
Mit der Richtlinie 2005/33/EG2 wurde erst- Die wichtigsten Schlussfolgerungen, auf die gasemissionen zu bestehen. Dass sich das
genannte Richtlinie geändert, insbesondere sich die Teilnehmer weitgehend verständi- Parlament der Forderung des Schifffahrts-
im Hinblick auf Kraftstoffe für Seeschiffe. gen konnten, waren sektors nach Absenkung des Schwefelge-
Für Binnenschiffe hat die Änderungsricht- • Absenkung des Schwefelgehalts in einer halts von Binnenschiffskraftstoffen in
linie zur Folge, dass mit Wirkung vom 1. Stufe auf 10 ppm5 statt wie von der Kom- einem Schritt auf 10 ppm angeschlossen
Januar 2010 diese keine Schiffskraftstoffe mission vorgeschlagen mit einer Zwi- hat, ist in der Gesamtschau der Diskussi-
mehr verwenden dürfen, deren Schwefelge- schenstufe von 300 ppm, onen um den Richtlinienvorschlag nicht
halt 0,1 Massenhundertteile überschreitet. • europaweite Einführung möglichst im mehr als eine Marginalie. Sollte sich die
Wenn ein Binnenschiff Kraftstoffe der See- Jahre 2010 und nicht wie von der Kom- Verabschiedung der Richtlinie noch sehr
schifffahrt, wie etwa Schweröle, verwenden mission vorgeschlagen erst Ende 2011, viel länger hinziehen, könnten interessierte
würde, müssten diese spätestens ab 2010 • Beschränkung der Beimischung biogener Staaten verabreden, die Absenkung des
den gleichen Vorgaben hinsichtlich des Stoffe auf deutlich niedrigere Werte als der- Schwefelgehalts vorzuziehen. Die Richtli-
Schwefelgehalts genügen wie Gasöle. zeit im Rahmen europäischer Aktionspro- nien der EU lassen dies ausdrücklich zu. In
Ziel der beiden vorgenannten Richtlinien gramme für den Klimaschutz vorgesehen, einem solchen Fall müsste jedoch sicherge-
war die Reduzierung der Versauerung der • Qualitätsanforderungen gleich oder ähn- stellt werden, dass eine möglichst große
Umwelt. Folgerichtig regelten sie auch allein lich der EN 590 für Diesel im Straßenver- Zahl von Staaten diesen Schritt gleichzeitig
den Schwefelgehalt der Kraftstoffe. Mit der kehr. durchführt, um Wettbewerbsverzerrungen
Erkenntnis, dass Zusammengefasst kann festgestellt wer- und Tanktourismus zu vermeiden.
• Partikelemissionen von Dieselmotoren den, dass fast alle »Stakeholder« die Ver- Es scheint also so, dass die Binnenschiff-
wahrscheinlich die Lebenserwartung wendung eines schwefelfreien Kraftstoffes fahrt einen Kraftstoff bekommen wird, der
eines beträchtlichen Teils der Bevölke- befürworten, der dem des Straßenverkehrs genauso »sauber« sein wird wie der des Stra-
rung verkürzen, entspricht oder zumindest sehr nahe ßenverkehrs, nur das letzterer bereits jetzt
• die im Verkehrsektor verbrannten Mine- kommt und dass dieser möglichst rasch über schwefelfreie Kraftstoffe verfügt und
ralölprodukte maßgeblich zu den Treib- gesetzlich vorgeschrieben werden sollte. dass die jetzt noch verfügbaren Kraftstoffe mit
hausgasemissionen beitragen, einem Schwefelgehalt von 50 ppm bis Ende
3 Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parla-
• für anspruchsvolle technische Emissionsre- ments und des Rates xx/xx/2006 zur Änderung der Richt- 2008 voraussichtlich nicht mehr angeboten
duzierungsmaßnahmen an Verbrennungs- linie 98/70/EG im Hinblick auf die Spezifikationen für werden dürfen. In den USA erfolgte die
Otto-, Diesel- und Gasölkraftstoffe und die Einführung
motoren Kraftstoffe nicht nur annähernd eines Systems zur Überwachung und Verringerung der Rechtssetzung für Binnenschiffskraftstoffe
Treibhausgasemissionen bei der Verwendung von für den
frei von Schwefel sein müssen, sondern Straßenverkehr bestimmten Kraftstoffen, zur Änderung
spät, aber zügig: Ab Juni 2007 ist dort ein ma-
1 Richtlinie 1999/32/EG des Rates vom 26. April 1999 über der Richtlinie 99/32/EG des Rates betreffend die Festset- ximaler Schwefelgehalt von 500 ppm und ab
zung der Spezifikationen für von Binnenschiffen gebrauchte
eine Verringerung des Schwefelgehalts bestimmter flüssiger
Kraftstoffe, und zur Aufhebung der Richtlinie 93/12/EWG Juni 2012 von 15 ppm vorgeschrieben.
Kraft- oder Brennstoffe und zur Änderung der Richtlinie
93/12/EWG; (ABl. L 121 vom 11.5.1999, S. 13). Geändert (KOM(2007)18).
durch die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1882/2003 des Europä- 4 Preliminary Summary and Conclusions: Low Sulphur Rechtsvorschriften hinsichtlich
ischen Parlaments und des Rates (ABl. L 284 vom Fuel for Inland Waterway Transport in Europe – Round der Schadstoffemissionen von
31.10.2003, S. 1). Table of the Central Commission for Navigation on the
2 Richtlinie 2005/33/EG des Europäischen Parlaments Rhine (CCNR); 3 May 2007, Strasbourg; www.ccr-zkr. Binnenschiffen
und des Rates vom 6. Juli 2005 zur Änderung der Richtlinie org. 6 Centraal Bureau voor de Rijn- en Binnenvaart et al;
1999/32/EG hinsichtlich des Schwefelgehalts von Schiffs- 5 Kraftstoffe mit einem maximalen Schwefelgehalt von 10 Zwavelvrije brandstof – EN 590 voor de binnenvaart. Rot-
kraftstoffen; (ABl. L 191 vom 22.7.2005, S. 59). ppm werden auch als schwefelfrei bezeichnet. terdam, 2008.
42 Binnenschifffahrt – ZfB – Nr. 9 – 2008

Schiffstechnik
PN CO HC NOx PT
[kW] [g/kWh] [g/kWh] [g/kWh] [g/kWh] sondern wurden aus existierenden Vor-
37 ≤£ PN < 75 6,5 1,3 9,2 0,85 schriften entwickelt, die lediglich den spe-
75 ≤£ PN < 130 5,0 1,3 9,2 0,70 zifischen Bedingungen der Binnenschiff-
n ≥³ 2800 min-1 = 9,2 fahrt angepasst wurden. Dabei handelt es
N ≥³ 130 5,0 1,3 0,54
500 ≤£ n < 2800 min-1 = 45 . n(-0,2) sich um den NOX Technical Code9 der IMO
Tabelle 2. Die Emissionsgrenzwerte der Stufe I der ZKR. und die Richtlinie 97/68/EG10 über mobile
Arbeitsmaschinen. Wie die Vorschriften
PN CO HC NOx PT der IMO gelten auch die der ZKR gleicher-
[kW] [g/kWh] [g/kWh] [g/kWh] [g/kWh] maßen für Haupt- und Hilfsmotoren.
18 ≤£ PN < 37 5,5 1,5 8,0 0,8 Die ZKR verabschiedete ihre Emissions-
37 ≤£ PN < 75 5,0 1,3 7,0 0,4
vorschriften mit der Stufe I im Frühjahr 2000
und bereits ein Jahr später die Eckpunkte für
75 ≤£ PN < 130 5,0 1,0 6,0 0,3
eine Überarbeitung der Vorschriften mit
130 ≤£ PN < 560 3,5 1,0 6,0 0,2
wesentlich strengeren Grenzwerten der Stu-
n ≥³ 3150 min-1 = 6,0 fe II nach sechs bis acht Jahren. Die Stufe I
PN ≥³ 560 3,5 1,0 343 ≤£ n < 3150 min-1 = 45 . n(-0,2) – 3 0,2
gilt für alle Dieselmotoren, die ab Beginn des
n < 343 min-1 = 11,0
Jahres 2003 auf Schiffen, die eine Zulassung
Tabelle 3. Die Emissionsgrenzwerte der Stufe II der ZKR. nach den Rheinschifffahrtsregelungen besit-
zen, installiert sind und die Stufe II ab dem
1. Juli 2007. Die Emissionsgrenzwerte der
SV/P CO HC + NOx PT
Vorschriften der ZKR sind in den Tabellen
[Liter pro Zylinder/kW] [g/kWh] [g/kWh] [g/kWh]
2 und 3 wiedergegeben.
V1:1 SV < 0,9 & P ≥ 37 kW 5,0 7,5 0,40
Die Europäische Kommission war ein-
V1:2 0,9 ≤ SV < 1,2 5,0 7,2 0,30 geladen, sich an den Arbeiten der ZKR zu
V1:3 1,2 ≤ SV < 2,5 5,0 7,2 0,20 beteiligen. Sie befand zunächst, dass es
V1:4 2,5 ≤ SV < 5 5,0 7,2 0,20 nicht notwendig ist, die Abgasemissionen
V2:1 5 ≤ SV < 15 5,0 7,8 0,27 der Binnenschifffahrt zu reglementieren,
V2:2 15 ≤ SV < 20 & P < 3300 kW 5,0 8,7 0,50 da deren Beitrag zur Luftverschmutzung
V2:3 15 ≤ SV < 20 & P ≥ 3300kW 5,0 9,8 0,50 sehr gering sei. Später änderte sie jedoch
V2:4 20 ≤ SV < 25 5,0 9,8 0,50 ihre Ansicht, auch aufgrund des Insistie-
rens der Mitgliedsstaaten der ZKR, und
V2:5 25 ≤ SV < 30 5,0 11,0 0,50
schlug vor, in die Richtlinie 97/68/EG über
Tabelle 4. Die Emissionsgrenzwerte für Motoren zum Antrieb von Binnenschiffen der EU. die mobilen Maschinen auch Emissions-
anforderungen für Binnenschiffsmotoren
SV/P CO HC NOx PT aufzunehmen. Dies erfolgte dann mit der
Erläuterung
[Liter pro Zylinder/kW] [g/kWh] [g/kWh] [g/kWh] [g/kWh]
V1:1: SV < 0.9 & P ≥ 37 W 3.5 4.0 0.14 2012
1.0 fen und luftverunreinigenden Partikel von Dieselmotoren«;
V1:2: 0.9 ≤ SV < 1.2 4.0 0.12 ggf. 1.1.2013 ZKR.
9 International Convention for the Prevention of Polluti-
V1:3: 1.2 ≤ SV < 2.5 4.2 0.11 ggf. 1.1.2013 on from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978
V1:4: 2.5 ≤ SV < 5 4.8 0.11 2012 (MARPOL 73/78), Annex VI on the Prevention of Air Pol-
lution from Ships, IMO.
V2:1: 5 ≤ SV < 15 5.0 0.14 2012
2.5 10 Richtlinie 97/68/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und
V2:2: 15 ≤ SV < 20 & P < 3300 kW 0.8 5.2 0.20 ggf. 1.1.2013 des Rates vom 16. Dezember 1997 zur Angleichung der
Rechtsvorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten über Maßnahmen
ggf. zur Bekämpfung der Emission von gasförmigen Schadstof-
V2:3, V2:4, V2:5 5.9/6.6 0.20 durch IMO fen und luftverunreinigenden Partikeln aus Verbrennungs-
motoren für mobile Maschinen und Geräte; (ABl. L 59 vom
reguliert 27.02.1998, S. 1).
Tabelle 5. Die Emissionsgrenzwerte der vorgeschlagenen Stufe III der ZKR.
Wesentlich komplexer als die Reglementierung der Kraftstoffe ist
die der Abgas- und Partikelemissionen. Dass aber auch dabei die
Rechtssetzung relativ rasch und pragmatisch erfolgen kann, belegen
die Arbeiten der ZKR zur Reduzierung von Abgasemissionen in
der Binnenschifffahrt, die in einem Bericht der PIANC7 ausführlich
beschrieben werden. (Diesem Bericht sind auch einige der nach-
stehenden Ausführungen entnommen.)
Vor einer Hinwendung zu den Vorschriften zunächst aber ein
Blick auf die Abgasemissionen im Verkehrssektor im Allgemeinen.
Tabelle 1 fasst die wichtigsten Emissionen, ihr Entstehen und ihre
Auswirkungen zusammen.
Die Vorschriften der ZKR über die Abgasemissionen von Bin-
nenschiffsmotoren8 sind keine vollständig neuen Vorschriften,
7 Gernot Pauli, Ökologisch nachhaltiger Verkehr – Reduzierung von Abgasemissionen in
der Binnenschifffahrt; PIANC, Bonn, 2002.
8 Rheinschiffsuntersuchungsordnung, Kapitel 8a »Emission von gasförmigen Schadstof-

Schiffstechnik
Emissionsgrenzwerte für Motoren von Binnenschiffen den soll und dem Europäischen Parlament
CO HC NOX PT und dem Rat gegebenenfalls entsprechende
Stufe Datum
[g/kWh] [g/kWh] [g/kWh] [g/kWh] Vorschläge zu unterbreiten. Die ZKR nahm
ZKR I 2003 5.0-6.5 1.3 8.0-9.2 0.54-0.85 diesen Auftrag zum Anlass, von der Weiter-
ZKR II 2007 3.5-5.5 1.0-1.5 6.0-11.0 0.2-0.8 entwicklung ihrer eigenen Vorschriften abzu-
ZKR III 2012? 2.5-3.5 0.8-1.0 4.0-6.6 0.11-0.2 sehen und statt dessen zu versuchen, mit der
ZKR IV 2016? 2.5 0.19 0.4 0.025
Europäischen Kommission einen gemein-
samen Vorschlag zu entwickeln, der zu einer
Emissionsgrenzwerte für Motoren schwerer Lastkraftwagen Vereinheitlichung der Abgasemissionsvor-
schriften für Binnenschiffe in Europa führt.
CO HC NOX PT
Stufe Datum Die ZKR initiierte dazu eine Experten-
[g/kWh] [g/kWh] [g/kWh] [g/kWh]
Euro I 1992 4.5 1.1 8.0 0.36-0.612
gruppe, die schnell von der EU für die Be-
lange der Binnenschifffahrt in die Mecha-
1996 4.0 1.1 7.0 0.25
Euro II nismen zur Überarbeitung der Richtlinie
1998 4.0 1.1 7.0 0.15
96/87/EG integriert wurde. Die Vertreter
Euro III 2000 2.1 0.66 5.0 0.10-0.13 der Mitgliedsstaaten der ZKR, insbeson-
Euro IV 2005 1.5 0.46 3.5 0.02 dere Deutschlands und der Niederlande,
Euro V 2008 1.5 0.46 2.0 0.02 und auch Österreichs, schlugen frühzeitig
Euro VI1 2012? 4.0 0.16-0.55 0.2-1.0 0.01-0.02 ambitionierte Emissionsgrenzwerte für die
Stufe III (nach dem Zählschema der ZKR),
Tabelle 9. Gegenüberstellung der Emissionsgrenzwerte der Motoren von Binnenschifffahrt die etwa 2012 in Kraft treten sollte, und der
und von schweren LKW. Stufe IV für 2016 vor. Die Grenzwertvor-
schläge sind in den Tabellen 5 und 6 wie-
Richtlinie 2004/26/EG11. Die so geänderte sionsgrenzwerte von ZKR und EU ist nicht dergegeben.
Richtlinie 97/68/EG unterscheidet im Hin- möglich, da die Kategorisierung der Mo- Der Stufe IV ist eine wesentlich größere
blick auf Binnenschiffe zwischen Antriebs- toren (ZKR: Leistung (Drehzahl); EU: Hub- Bedeutung beizumessen, da die Stufe III
motoren, Hilfsmotoren mit konstanter volumen (Leistung)) zu große Unterschiede einen temporären Charakter aufweist, wäh-
Drehzahl und Hilfsmotoren mit variabler aufweist. Der Vergleich muss also anhand rend – zumindest nach Ansicht der Regie-
Drehzahl und setzt jeweils unterschied- des individuellen Motors und dessen Ein- rungsvertreter – die Stufe IV längerfristig
liche Emissionsgrenzwerte fest. Die Emis- satzgebietes erfolgen. Grundsätzlich sind Bestand haben soll.
sionsgrenzwerte für Antriebsmotoren von die Unterschiede bei den Stickstoffoxiden Die Vertreter der Motorenhersteller, ne-
Binnenschiffen nach dieser Richtlinie sind gering und die Grenzwerte für die Partikel- ben den vorgenannten Behördenvertretern
in der Tabelle 4 wiedergegeben. emissionen sind bei der Stufe II der ZKR bei die maßgebende Kraft in der Expertengrup-
Die Motorkategorien V1:1 bis V1:3 müs- kleineren Motoren höher, aber bei größeren pe, brachten sehr spät einen abweichenden
sen ab dem 1.1.2007 die Grenzwerte erfül- Motoren niedriger. Vorschlag ein. Dieser Vorschlag umfasste
len, die anderen Motorkategorien ab dem Artikel 2 der Richtlinie 2004/26/EG beauf- zunächst nur eine weitere Stufe, die in Ta-
1.1.2009. Ein direkter Vergleich der Emis- tragt die Europäische Kommission bis zum belle 7 wiedergegeben ist.
31.12.2007 zu prüfen, ob eine zweite Grenz- Der Vorschlag der Motorenhersteller ist
11 Richtlinie 2004/26/EG des Europäischen Parlaments
und des Rates vom ... wertstufe für Binnenschiffe eingeführt wer- deutlich »angebotsorientiert«:
Tabelle 10. Reduktion von Schadstoffemissionen in Verbindung mit der Anwendung von verschieden Techniken bezogen auf Schadstoff-
emissionen eines Motors, welcher dem Emissionsstandard ZKR Stufe I entspricht. (FC steht für Änderung im Kraftstoffverbrauch.)

Schiffstechnik
Bild 1. Vergleich von Motorenemissionen der Binnenschifffahrt mit Grenzwerten der Vorschriften für Straßentransport (EURO) und Bin-
nenschifffahrt (ZKR/CCNR).
• weitestgehende Übereinstimmung mit etwa die Zulassung des Inverkehrbrin- trägern nicht zu verlieren;
den entsprechenden Vorschriften der gens von Motoren der niedrigeren Emis- • Einfachheit der Vorschriften mit mög-
USA, um den ohnehin schon kleinen sionsstufe noch bis zu zwei Jahre nach lichst wenig Motorenkategorien und nur
Markt für Binnenschiffsmotoren nicht Inkrafttreten der neuen Stufen, sofern der ein Einführungsdatum, was Hersteller,
noch weiter zu zersplittern, was die Ent- Motor vor Inkrafttreten der neuen Stufen Anwender und Behörden die Arbeit er-
wicklungs- und Zertifizierungskosten für produziert wurde. Diese Klausel ist auch leichtert; allerdings sind die Mitglieds-
die Hersteller begrenzen hilft; in den Gemeinschaftsvorschriften ent- staaten diesem Grundsatz untreu gewor-
• möglichst weit aufgefächerter Zeitraum halten, nicht jedoch in denen der ZKR. den bei ihren Bemühungen, mit ihren
für die Einführung der Vorschriften, um Der Vorschlag der Mitgliedsstaaten der Vorschlägen sich auf die Motorenherstel-
den Herstellern Zeit zu geben, die Vor- ZKR stellt andere Entscheidungskriterien in ler zuzubewegen;
schriften für verschiedene Motorkatego- den Vordergrund: • Vermeidung von Schlupflöchern, die die
rien nacheinander – und nicht gleichzei- • deutliche Entlastung der Umwelt, einer- umweltpolitische Zielsetzung gefährden;
tig – zu erfüllen, was die Entwicklungs- und seits zum Erreichen der umweltpoli- • Vermeidung von Wettbewerbsverzer-
Zertifizierungsabteilungen der Hersteller tischen Ziele der Staaten und der EU, rungen, hervorgerufen durch unter-
entlastet; andererseits um den »ökologischen Wett- schiedliche Einführungsdaten für ver-
• umfangreiche Flexibilitätsklauseln, wie bewerb« mit konkurrierenden Verkehrs- schiedene Motorenkategorien.
Bild 2. Vergleich von Emissionen in g/tkm zwischen Motorgüterschiff, welches einen Leichter schiebt, und schweren Nutzfahrzeugen unter
Berücksichtigung verschiedener Emissionsreduktionstechniken.

Schiffstechnik
Rauchgaswäsche und elektrostatische

Abscheidung)
• Höhere Kraftstoffqualität (Kraftstoff mit
niedrigem Schwefelgehalt – LSF)
• Alternative Kraftstoffe (Biodiesel – BD,
Biodieselkraftstoffgemische – BDB, Die-
sel-Wasseremulsionen, Erdgas und Was-
serstoff)
• Alternative Verbrennungskraftmaschi-
nen (Gasmotoren – NGE)
• Neue Antriebs- und Hilfsmaschinensys-
Bild 3. Das »Cleanest Ship« MV Victoria. teme (dieselelektrischer Antrieb und
Brennstoffzellen)
Einen Vorschlag für eine Stufe IV haben die Diese Gegenüberstellung ist jedoch nur be- • Elektronische Systeme (Advising Tempo-
Motorenhersteller auch unterbreitet. Dieser dingt aussagekräftig: maat – ATM und River Information Ser-
entspricht den Vorschriften der USA zu die- • Die Grenzwerte, die von einem Motor er- vices – RIS)
ser Stufe, die bereits verabschiedet sind. Das reicht werden können, werden nicht nur Das Emissionsreduktions-Potential in Ver-
aus europäischer Sicht herausragende Merk- von den eingesetzten Emissionsminde- bindung mit ausgewählten Emissionsre-
mal dieser Vorschriften ist, dass sie lediglich rungstechniken bestimmt, sondern auch duktions-Techniken ist in folgender Tabel-
für gewerblich genutzte Schiffsmotoren mit ganz wesentlich von den Messverfahren. le 10 angegeben.
einer Leistung von 600 kW und mehr und Die Messverfahren für die Bestimmung Für weitergehende Informationen wird
für Freizeitzwecke genutzte Schiffsmotoren der Abgas- und Partikelemissionen von auf die Referenzen 12 13 14 verwiesen.
mit einer Leistung von 2000 kW und mehr Binnenschiffs- und LKW-Motoren sind
gelten. Übertragen auf Europa würde dies nicht identisch. Erfüllbare Emissionsgrenzwerte
bedeuten, dass die meisten Schiffsmotoren • Die Grenzwerte sind nur ein maßgeb- Durch die Anwendung von SCR, Partikel-
nicht die Emissionsanforderungen einer licher Faktor für die tatsächlich erreich- filtern und Kraftstoffen mit niedrigem
Stufe IV zu erfüllen hätten. Die für die USA baren Emissionsminderungen. Andere Schwefelgehalt (10 ppm) auf ZKR I – Bin-
beschlossenen Grenzwerte liegen deutlich Faktoren sind beispielsweise der in dem nenschiffsmotoren können die EURO V
über den von den Mitgliedsstaaten der ZKR Sektor eingesetzte Kraftstoff oder der und ZKR III Emissionsgrenzwerte eingehal-
vorgeschlagenen. Umfang der Ausnahmeregelungen, die in ten werden, Bild 1. Für die Einhaltung der
Derzeit führt im Auftrag der Europäischen einer Vorschrift vorgesehen sind. EURO VI und ZKR IV Grenzwerte müssen
Kommission ein Beratungsbüro die obliga- Für verkehrs- und umweltpolitische Fra- entweder ähnliche Technologien eingeführt
torische Folgenabschätzung (»Impact As- gestellungen dürfte ein Vergleich der Emis- werden, wie sie im Straßentransport An-
sessment«) für die Überarbeitung der Richt- sionen bezogen auf die erbrachte Verkehrs- wendung finden, einschließlich der entspre-
linie 97/68/EG durch. Dabei sollen neben leistung (g/tkm) aussagekräftiger sein als chenden Kraftstoffe, oder neue Motoren-
den Vorschlägen der Motorenhersteller auch ein Vergleich der Emissionsgrenzwerte (g/ technologien wie z.B. HCCI und Gasmotoren
die von den Mitgliedsstaaten der ZKR einge- kWh). Eine derartige Betrachtung wird müssen in die Binnenschifffahrt Eingang
brachten Grenzwerte der nächsten Emissi- nachfolgend angestellt. finden. In Bild 1 bedeuten Euro truck und
onsstufen Berücksichtigung finden. Die Fol- CCNR vessel die Emissionsgrenzwerte in
genabschätzung könnte in diesem Jahr Technische Möglichkeiten g/kWh, wie sie durch die entsprechenden
abgeschlossen und ein Vorschlag seitens der zur Verringerung der Schadstoff- Standards für die Straße und die Binnen-
Kommission zur Änderung der Richtlinie in emissionen der Binnenschifffahrt schifffahrt durch die ZKR vorgegeben sind.
der ersten Hälfte 2009 dem Europäischen Unter Berücksichtigung der Entwicklun- Im Allgemeinen liegen die Partikelemissi-
Parlament und Rat vorgelegt werden. (Damit gen hinsichtlich strenger werdender Emis- onen von Binnenschiffsmotoren, welche
würde die Kommission die ihr in der Richt- sionsvorschriften, Übereinstimmung mit ZKR I entsprechen, weit unter dem vorge-
linie 2004/26/EG von Parlament und Rat der Verkehrspolitik der EU und Umwelt- gebenen Grenzwert und entsprechen etwa
auferlegte Frist um mehr als ein Jahr über- freundlichkeit als Wettbewerbsfaktor von dem dargestellten »Basic Case« (BC).
ziehen.) Wegen der Komplexität der Materie zunehmender Bedeutung wurden im Pro-
– die Binnenschifffahrt ist hier wiederum jekt CREATING (www.creating.nu) des 6. Schadstoffemissionen –
nur ein Randthema – dürfte eine Verabschie- EU-Forschungsrahmenprogramms (FP6- Vergleich Binnenschifffahrt und
dung nicht vor Ende 2009, sondern eher im EU) mögliche Lösungen für die Verringe- Straßengüterverkehr
Jahre 2010 zu erwarten sein. Berücksichtigt rung der Schadstoffemissionen der Binnen- Der Vergleich wurde für ein DDSG-
man dann noch mindestens ein Jahr für die schifffahrt untersucht, welche im Folgenden Steinklasse Motor-Güter-Schiff durchge-
nationale Umsetzung der Richtlinie und aufgelistet sind: führt, welches einen Leichter Europa IIB
mindestens zwei Jahre Entwicklungsvorlauf • Motoreninterne Maßnahmen (EGR – ex- schiebt. Die Strecke des Transports erstreckt
für die neuen Motoren, erscheint 2012 als haust gas recirculation, fortschrittliche 12 Schweighofer J. and Seiwerth P.: Environmental per-
Einführungsdatum der nächsten Grenzwert- Einspritzsysteme, Befeuchtung der An- formance of inland navigation. Proceedings of the Europe-
an Inland Waterway Navigation Conference, Visegrád,
stufen wenig wahrscheinlich. saugluft, Wassereinspritzung in Zylinder Hungary, Juni 27-29,2007.
Abschließend sind die Emissionsgrenz- und HCCI – homogeneous charge com- 13 Schweighofer J. and Seiwerth P.: Inland environmental
werte der Binnenschifffahrt, und zwar die pression ignition) performance. The Naval Architect, Journal of The Royal
Institution of Naval Architects, November 2007.
nach den Vorschriften der ZKR, mit den • Abgasnachbehandlung (Dieseloxidati- 14 Kampfer A. and Schweighofer J. et al.: Environmental
Grenzwerten der Emissionsvorschriften onskatalysator, SCR – Selektive kataly- impact of inland navigation, CREATING Work Package 6,
final report, 2006, Veröffentlichung 2008 erwartet.
der EU für schwere LKW gegenübergestellt. tische Reduktion, Partikelfilter – PMF,

Schiffstechnik
Angestrebte Emissionsreduktion Die Binnenschifffahrt läuft Gefahr ihre Po-

NOX PM FC CO2 SOX sition als umweltfreundlichster Verkehrsträger
Advising Tempomaat (ATM) -7% -7% -7% -7% -7% zu verlieren. In Bezug auf NOX- und Partike-
Schwefelarmer Kraftstoff (LSF,
lemissionen bezogen auf kWh ist dies schon
keine -17% keine keine -99.5% der Fall. Für die Wiedererlangung der Position
EN 590, 10 ppm)
Selektive katalytische Reduktion (SCR) -85% keine keine keine keine des umweltfreundlichsten Verkehrsträgers in
Bezug auf die wichtigsten Emissionsarten
Rußpartikelfilter (DPF) keine -95% +2% +2% +2%
(NOX, PM, CO2, SOX, CO, HC) ist es notwen-
Gesamt-Emissionsreduktion -86% -96% -5% -5% -99.5%
dig, als erste Maßnahme Kraftstoffe mit nied-
Tabelle 11. Angestrebte Emissionsreduktion. rigem Schwefelgehalt entsprechend EN 590
für die Binnenschifffahrt einzuführen. Eine
sich von Passau (D) nach Vidin (BG) und Die Anwendung von SCR auf Binnen- TNO Studie15 hat gezeigt, dass dies für einen
zurück (insgesamt 2884 km). Für den Stra- schiffsmotoren führt aber schon zu beträcht- Großteil der bestehenden Motoren möglich
ßentransport wurden Nutzfahrzeuge mit 34 lich geringeren NOX-Emissionen und etwa ist, ohne dass sie dabei Schaden nehmen.
bis 40 Tonnen Gesamtgewicht herangezo- gleichen Partikelemissionen im Vergleich
gen, welche den entsprechenden EURO mit dem EURO V Nutzfahrzeug. Die An- »The Cleanest Ship« –
Standards genügen. Heutzutage entspre- wendung von SCR, Kraftstoff mit geringem ein praktisches Beispiel für die
chen die meisten Motoren der Binnenschiffe Schwefelgehalt (10 ppm), Partikelfilter und Erfüllung strikter Emissionsgrenz-
dem CCNR I Standard (basic case, M1, BC), Advising Tempomaat führt zu klar überle- werte in der Binnenschifffahrt
wobei für diesen Fall im Vergleich keine genem Umweltverhalten des Binnenschiffs Unter Berücksichtung einer relativ ein-
Emissionsreduktions-Techniken, wie sie im Vergleich mit dem EURO VI Nutzfahr- fachen praktischen Umsetzung, wurde im
aufgelistet wurden, Anwendung finden. zeug hinsichtlich Partikelemissionen und FP6-EU Projekt CREATING die Anwen-
Der Vergleich wurde für NOX- und Partik- etwa gleichem Umweltverhalten im Ver- dung von selektiver katalytischer Redukti-
elemissionen bezogen auf die Transportleis- gleich mit dem EURO VI Nutzfahrzeug hin- on, Partikelfiltern, Kraftstoff mit niedrigem
tung in tkm durchgeführt. Die Partikel- und sichtlich der NOX-Emissionen. Hinsichtlich Schwefelgehalt und Advising Tempomaat
NOX-Emissionen in g/tkm in Zusammen- der Reduktion der Partikelemissionen spielt als effektivste Maßnahme zur Verringerung
hang mit dem Referenzfall (M1, BC) sind der Partikelfilter die größte Rolle, welcher
merkbar höher als jene von schweren Nutz- aber Kraftstoff mit niedrigem Schwefelgehalt 15 Kattenwinkel H., Verbeek R. and Eijk A.: Review of
potential issues for inland ship engines when reducing
fahrzeugen, welche EURO V entsprechen, voraussetzt, wie auch viele andere Emissi- gasoil sulphur level to maximum 10 ppmm. TNO Report
Bild 2. onsreduktions-Technologien, z.B. EGR. MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-01813, Juni 2007.
ECLIPSE® 705
Der Eclipse® 705 ist ein mit 24 V Gleichstrom arbeitender
Füllstandmessumformer für Flüssigkeiten, der auf der
revolutionären GWR-Technologie (Guided Wave Radar)
beruht. Der 705 wurde für den Einsatz mit GWR-Koaxial-
oder Doppelstabsonden entwickelt. Dieser hochmoderne
Füllstandmessumformer zeichnet sich durch eine Mess-
leistung aus, die die zahlreicher herkömmlicher Technologien
überragt.
Sicherheit liegt
in unserer Natur
FE T Y I
SA
NT
EGRITY
LE
V EL
Alte Ziegelei 2-4,

® D-51491 Overath
Tel: 02204 / 9536-0
WELTWEIT LOSINGEN FUR FULLSTAND UND DURCHFLUSS
vertrieb@magnetrol.de
www.magnetrol.de

Schiffstechnik
der Schadstoffemissionen der Binnenschiff- gerte Schmierung wegen des geringeren Lieferant des hoch-qualitativen Kraftstoffs
fahrt identifiziert. Diese Systeme wurden im Schwefelgehalts. Ausgewählte Beispiele aus 2. VT, Betreiber des Schiffes
Demonstrator »The Cleanest Ship« instal- der Praxis haben gezeigt, dass dem nicht so 3. Techno Fysica, Implementierung des
liert, wodurch nachgewiesen werden soll, ist. Im Gegenteil, es wurde berichtet, dass die Advising Tempomaats und Durchfüh-
dass diese Systeme in der Binnenschifffahrt Motoren mit dem niedrigschwefelhaltigem rung von Messungen in Zusammenhang
mit geringem Aufwand anwendbar sind und Kraftstoff sogar besser und effizienter laufen. mit dem Advising Tempomaat
die Schadstoffemissionen auf das geforderte Dies wurde durch eine TNO-Studie unter- 4. Hug engineering, Implementierung des
Niveau reduziert werden können. Die De- mauert1616, welche aussagt, dass der Großteil SCR-Katalysators und der Partikelfilter
monstration wird zur Zeit an einem Schmier- der bestehenden Binnenschiffsmotoren mit für die Hauptmaschine
öl-Tanker, der MV Victoria, durchgeführt, Kraftstoff EN 590 betrieben werden können 5. Hanwel (auch Codinox oder Soottech),
die im Rotterdamer Hafengebiet operiert. und neue Motoren Kraftstoffe mit weniger Implementierung der Partikelfilter für
Die Demonstration wurde offiziell am 20 als 50 ppm Schwefelgehalt verlangen. die Hilfdieselanlagen, Messung von
November 2007 begonnen und dauert ein NOX- und Partikelemissionen
Jahr. Der Kraftstoffverbrauch und die NOX- Das Nauticlean S System 6. Breko, schiffbauliche Problemstellungen
Emissionen werden direkt gemessen. Die Das Nauticlean S System von Hug Enginee- 7. MTU, Problemstellungen in Zusam-
CO2- und SOX-Emissionen werden aus dem ring besteht aus zwei Reaktoren, welche je- menhang mit der Maschinenanlage
Kraftstoffverbrauch errechnet. Die Partike- weils den SCR-Katalysator und den Partikel- 8. Lloyds Register, Klassifizierung
lemissionen werden aus Prüfstandsergeb- filter beinhalten. Der Partikelfilter ist mit 9. DLD, Projektkoordination
nissen mit und ohne Anwendung von Par- einem Vollstrom-Regenerationsbrenner-Sys- 10.Yara, Lieferant von Harnstoff
tikelfiltern bestimmt, da eine genaue direkte tem ausgestattet, das für eine betriebsunab- 11.Bit factory, Umsetzung und Gestaltung
Messung im Betrieb zu aufwendig ist. Die hängige, gründliche Rußabbrennung sorgt. der Web-Seite
Ergebnisse in Bezug auf CO2-, SOX-, NOX- Für die effektive Beseitigung der Rußpar- 12.via donau, technische Beratung und Öf-
und Partikelemissionen werden regelmäßig tikel werden katalytisch beschichtete Silizi- fentlichkeitsarbeit (PR, Texte zu Websei-
aufgezeichnet und der Öffentlichkeit unter um-Carbid-Wabenfilter verwendet, welche te und Veröffentlichungen)
folgender Web-Adresse zugänglich gemacht: aus Mikrofasern bestehen. Die Rußpartikel 13.VNSI and SPB, Öffentlichkeitsarbeit
www.cleanestship.eu. verbleiben im Filter, während das Abgas (PR)
durch den Filter strömt. Dies führt zu einer 14.SPB, Koordinator des FP6 EU Projekts
Emissionsreduktionstechniken langsamen Temperatursteigerung im Filter. CREATING.
Advising Tempomaat Sobald die Regenerationstemperatur er- Hiezu kommt noch eine Kooperation mit
Der Advising Tempomaat ist ein System, reicht ist, werden die im Filter verbliebenen 15.der Hafenbehörde von Rotterdam in Be-
welches Informationen für eine wirtschaft- Rußpartikel vollständig abgebrannt. Auf zug auf operative Aspekte und Öffent-
lich optimierte Fahrweise bereitstellt. Der Grund der katalytischen Beschichtung be- lichkeitsarbeit (PR).
Kern des Advising Tempomaats besteht aus trägt die Regenerationstemperatur etwa 450
einem Computerprogramm, welches den °C und die Filter können ohne zusätzliche Bedeutung von CREATING
Schiffsführer hinsichtlich der wirtschaftlich Energiezufuhr regeneriert werden. und dem »Cleanest Ship« Projekt
optimalen Kombination aus Fahrtgebiet Selektive katalytische Reduktion ist eine CREATING und das Cleanest Ship Pro-
und Schiffsgeschwindigkeit »berät«, wo- Technik für effektive Beseitigung von NOX- jekt tragen direkt zur Umsetzung der EU
durch unter Einhaltung des Zeitplans der Emissionen. Hierzu wird Ammoniak ver- Transportpolitik bei, insbesondere in Bezug
Kraftstoffverbrauch und die Emissionen wendet, das als Harnstofflösung (33 %) in auf die Umsetzung des EU Aktionspro-
des Schiffes minimiert werden. Der Advi- das Abgas gespritzt wird, wodurch die Stick- grammes NAIADES (Action Programme
sing Tempomaat, dessen Informationen oxide (NOX) in Stickstoff und Wasser redu- NAIADES, COM(2006) 6 final), welches
hinsichtlich Geschwindigkeit manuell um- ziert werden. u.a. Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung sowohl
gesetzt werden, ist ein Nachfolgeprodukt Angestrebte Emissionsreduktion der Effizienz der Logistik als auch des Um-
des früheren Tempomaaten, welcher die Für den Advising Tempomaat wurde mit weltverhaltens und der Sicherheit der Bin-
Geschwindigkeit des Schiffes automatisch 7 % eine moderate Reduktion des Kraft- nenschifffahrt vorsieht.
an den optimalen Kraftstoffverbrauch an- stoffverbrauchs (FC) angenommen, wel- Das »Cleanest Ship« Projekt demonstriert
passte, ohne dem Schiffsführer »beratend« che ihre Ursache im operativen Gebiet des sehr eindrucksvoll, wie schon zur Verfügung
zur Seite zu stehen. Schiffes hat. In Versuchen wurde aber auch stehende Emissionsreduktionstechniken auf
schon gezeigt, dass der Einsatz eines Advi- die Binnenschifffahrt, welche immerhin aus
Kraftstoff mit niedrigem Schwefelgehalt sing Tempomaats bis zu 15 % Einsparung mehr als 8500 motorisierten Einheiten be-
Die MV Victoria wird mit einem extrem im Kraftstoffverbrauch bringen kann. Im steht (Rhein- und Donauflotte), angewendet
schwefelarmen Kraftstoff (10 ppm)betrieben. Wert für die Reduktion der Partikelemis- werden können und dass auch die Binnen-
Der Kraftstoff entspricht dem Standard EN sionen in Zusammenhang mit dem Parti- schifffahrt in der Lage ist, strengsten Abgas-
590, der auch im Straßenverkehr eingesetzt kelfilter ist auch der Einfluss der selektiven vorschriften zu entsprechen (Bilder 1 und 2),
wird. Die Anwendung dieses Kraftstoffs ist katalytischen Reduktion berücksichtigt. wodurch sie ihre Position als umweltfreund-
die Grundvoraussetzung für den Einsatz der lichster Verkehrsträger behaupten kann.
Partikelfilter, welche bei höherem Schwefel- Das »Cleanest Ship« Team
gehalt verstopft würden. In den Jahren zuvor Das »Cleanest Ship« Team besteht aus: Verfasser:
wurde heftig diskutiert, ob man bestehende 1. BP, Schiffseigentümer, Projektleiter und Gernot Pauli – ZKR, g.pauli@ccr-zkr.org
Binnenschiffsmotoren mit derartigen Kraft- Juha Schweighofer, via donau –
16 16 Kattenwinkel H., Verbeek R. and Eijk A.: Review of
stoffen betreiben kann, ohne dass diese dabei potential issues for inland ship engines when reducing Österreichische Wasserstraßen-GmbH,
Schaden nehmen. Man befürchtete Schäden gasoil sulphur level to maximum 10 ppmm. TNO Report juha.schweighofer@via-donau.org
MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-01813, Juni 2007.
an den Motoren bedingt durch eine verrin-

Submission to the Green Ship Technology Award 2008

The Cleanest Ship
A cooperation between Creating (DG Research, 6th Framework Program) and BP
Blaauw, H.G, Shipping Projects Bureau/Dutch Logistic Development bv, The Netherlands
Schweighofer, J, via donau, Austria
Smyth, M.D. BP shipping ltd, UK
Green Ship Technology Award 2008
Summary
Introduction
inland navigation has to deal with the challenge of introducing highly efficient technologies
for the improvement of its environmental performance being applicable to small spaces, in
contrast to seagoing vessels where enough space is available.
Regarding emissions to the air, especially with respect to emissions of the greenhouse gas
CO2 (carbon-dioxide), the performance of inland vessels is outstanding compared with road
transport. On average, the CO2 emissions of an inland vessel are only about 1/3 of the ones a
truck emits per ton-kilometre (tkm) due to a higher energy efficiency. Also with respect to CO
(carbon monoxide) and HC (hydro carbon) emissions per tkm, inland navigation is
significantly superior to road transport. However, SOX emissions associated with inland
navigation are actually much higher than the ones resulting from road transport, even when
related to tkm (today, these emissions are up to 60 times higher) due to the much higher
sulphur content of fuel used.
Environmental Agency, UBA), respectively, these new trucks may emit even significantly
less NOX and PM per tkm than inland vessels.
Within the EU project CREATING (www.creating.nu), the application of advising
PM filter was found to be the most suitable solution to improve the environmental
performance of inland navigation. These systems are utilized in the demonstrator, the
Cleanest Ship.
The Cleanest Ship Demonstrator

The demonstration project is carried out on the motor vessel ‘Victoria’, owned by BP
shipping, managed by the Verenigde Tankrederij (VT) and operating in the Port of Rotterdam
area. The demonstration was launched officially in Rotterdam on November 20th, 2007, and it
will last one year. Fuel consumption and NOX emissions are directly measured; CO2 and SOX
emissions are calculated from the fuel consumption, whereas PM emissions are evaluated
using the emission reduction potential estimated on the test stand, due to difficult accurate
measurement of PM emissions at service conditions.
comparison with road transport, are monitored and presented to the public on a regular basis
at www.cleanestship.eu.
Figure 1: The Cleanest Ship MV Victoria.

The emission reduction techniques utilized are the advising Tempomaat, low sulphur fuel
Tempomaat a system developed by Techno Fysica bv (NL) is used. The selective-catalytic-
Engineering (D).
The advising Tempomaat

The advising Tempomaat (ATM) is a system enabling an economically optimised operation
of a vessel.
economical combination of route and speed, enabling the vessel to arrive on time with a most
efficient use of fuel leading to a reduction of fuel consumption and emissions. The ATM,
where the advised fuel settings are realised manually, is the successor of the Tempomaat
Low sulphur fuel
The motor vessel ‘Victoria’ is operated with low sulphur fuel equal to road standard (diesel
fuel EN 590). Usage of low sulphur fuel is a precondition for the application of PM filters and
efficient reduction of PM and SOX emissions as these emissions are related to the sulphur
content of the fuel used.

particles are retained in the filter. As soon as the regeneration temperature is reached, the soot
in the filters is burned off without residue. Due to the catalytic coating, the regenerating
temperature is around 450 °C and the filter burns itself clean without requiring auxiliary
energy.
NOx PM FC CO2 SOx

10 ppm)
reduction)

For the advising Tempomaat, the fuel consumption (FC) may be reduced by 5 up to 10%. For
Impact of the Cleanest Ship project
The cleanest ship project contributes directly to the implementation of EC transport policy,
particularly, with respect to the implementation of the Action programme NAIADES,
COM(2006) 6 final, which requires the improvement of logistics efficiency, as well as
environmental and safety performance of inland waterway transport.
As outcome of CREATING and a TNO study on the applicability of low sulphur fuel with a
maximum sulphur content of 10 ppm to existing inland vessel engines, at the Round Table of
the CCNR (Central Commission for the Navigation on the Rhine), consensus was achieved
about introducing fuel of equal or similar quality to road standard for inland navigation and
lowering the sulphur content of fuel to 10 ppm in one step as soon as possible, and the
European Commission is considering the introduction of this fuel already in 2009.
Considering the European inland navigation fleet, already the Rhine and Danube fleets
comprise more than 8500 motorized units. Using the example of the motor vessel ‘Victoria’,
within the Cleanest Ship project, it is shown how highly efficient emission reduction
technologies and better fuel quality can be applied to these units, leading to compliance of the
inland navigation sector with even strictest regulations of road transport, Fig 2.
0,016
0,014
EURO III (2001)
0,012
EURO III truck (2001)
0,01 EURO V truck (2009)
EURO VI truck (2010, UBA proposal)

SCR (M2)
0,008
SCR + ATM + BD (M4)
M1 SCR + ATM + BDB (M5)
0,006 SCR + ATM + LSF (M6)
Truck EURO V (2009) SCR + ATM + LSF + PMF (M7)
M2 NGE (M8)
0,004 M3
M5 M4 EURO V (2009) EURO IV (2006)
M6
0,002
MCV + barge: SCR + LSF +
M8 PMF + ATM
M7
0
0 EURO VI 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
(2010)
Truck EURO VI (2010, UBA proposal)
Figure 2: Emission comparison in g/tkm between motor cargo vessel (MCV) pushing a barge
(Danube vessel) and trucks in service, considering different emission reduction techniques.
Marine Fuels and Emissions Conference, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2007

The Cleanest Ship
A cooperation between Creating (DG Research, 6th Framework Program) and BP
Blaauw, H.G. Dutch Logistic Development bv. the Netherlands
Schweighofer, J, via donau, Austria
Smyth, M.D. BP shipping ltd, UK
Marine Fuels & Emissions Conference in Rotterdam on 27 and 28 November 2007
organized by Motor Ship magazine
Summary
Introduction
Inland navigation is known as a safe and environmentally friendly transport mode. Regarding
emissions to the air, especially with respect to emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2 (carbon-
dioxide), the performance of inland vessels is outstanding. On average, the CO2 emissions of
an inland vessel are only about 1/3 of the ones a truck emits per ton-kilometre (tkm) due to a
higher energy efficiency. Also with respect to CO (carbon monoxide) and HC (hydro carbon)
emissions per tkm, inland navigation is significantly superior to road transport. However, SOX
emissions associated with inland navigation are actually much higher than the ones resulting
from road transport, even when related to tkm (today, these emissions are about 60 times
higher) due to the much higher sulphur content of fuel used.
Environmental Agency, UBA), respectively, these new trucks may emit even significantly
less NOX and PM per tkm than inland vessels.
Within the EU project CREATING (www.creating.nu), the application of advising
PM filter was found to be the most suitable solution to improve the environmental
performance of inland navigation. These systems are utilized in the demonstrator, the
Cleanest Ship.
The Cleanest Ship Demonstrator

The demonstration project is carried out on the motor tank vessel ‘Victoria’, owned by BP
shipping, managed by the Verenigde Tankrederij (VT) and operating in the Port of Rotterdam
area. The demonstration will last one year from November, 2007. Fuel consumption and NOX
emissions are directly measured; CO2 and SOX emissions are calculated from the fuel
consumption, whereas PM emissions are evaluated using the emission reduction potential
estimated on the test stand, due to difficult accurate measurement of PM emissions at service
conditions.
comparison with road transport, are monitored and presented on a regular basis at

The emission reduction techniques utilized are the advising Tempomaat, low sulphur fuel
Tempomaat a system developed by Techno Fysica bv (NL) is used. The selective-catalytic-
Engineering (D).
The advising Tempomaat

The advising Tempomaat (ATM) is a system enabling an economically optimised operation
of a vessel.
economical combination of route and speed, enabling the vessel to arrive on time with a most
efficient use of fuel leading to a reduction of fuel consumption and emissions. The ATM,
where the advised fuel settings are realised manually, is the successor of the Tempomaat
Low sulphur fuel

The motor tank vessel ‘Victoria’ is operated with low sulphur fuel equal to road standard
(diesel fuel EN 590). Usage of low sulphur fuel is a precondition for the application of PM
filters and efficient reduction of PM and SOX emissions as these emissions are related to the
sulphur content of the fuel used.

particles are retained in the filter. As soon as the regeneration temperature is reached, the soot
in the filters is burned off without residue. Due to the catalytic coating, the regenerating
temperature is around 450 °C and the filter burns itself clean without requiring auxiliary
energy.
NOx PM FC CO2 SOx

10 ppm)
reduction)
2
For the advising Tempomaat, the fuel consumption (FC) may be reduced by 5 up to 10%. For
The project will start at the third week of November at Rotterdam, and the fourth week of
November at Bruxelles.
3
The Flag – Newsletter of BP, September, 2007

The Flag - Issue 23 - September 2007
www.bp.com/shipping
The environmental
performance of inland navigation
Taken from Naval Architect
Focussed on emissions to the air, the
environmental performance of inland navigation
and means for its improvement are discussed in
this article. The investigation that the discussion
is based on was carried out in Work Package 6,
Environmental Impact of Inland Navigation, of
the EU project CREATING – Concepts to
Reduce Environmental impact and Attain
optimal Transport performance by Inland
NaviGation, funded within the Sixth Framework
Programme (www.creating.nu).
Continued >
21
www.bp.com/shipping
The environmental performance of

inland navigation (continued)
Inland navigation is known as a safe and environmentally The introduction of emission limits for road transport since the
friendly transport mode. Due to its low share (of about 2 %) of early 1990s has led to a significant reduction of the pollutant
total traffic energy consumption (road, rail and inland navigation), emissions of NOX (nitrogen oxide) and PM (particulate matter) on
see Fig. 1, its contribution to global total traffic emissions is road. For inland navigation, such strict emission limits are still
regarded as almost insignificant. missing. Consequently, the superiority in the environmental
performance of inland vessels compared with trucks has become
smaller in this regard, and with the introduction of EURO V and
EURO VI limits for road transport in 2009 and 2010 (proposed by
the German Federal Environmental Agency, UBA), respectively,
these new trucks may emit even significantly less NOX and PM
per tkm than inland vessels (Figs. 2 and 3). The dates denote
when the regulations are considered to be fully in force.
Additionally, truck engines are replaced on average after five
years of operation. This implies that only five years after the
introduction of a new emission limit, the average truck fleet
complies with this limit. When a vessel engine is replaced, its
average age accounts for approximately 20 years or even more,
thus, it will also take much longer in order to achieve
compliance with new emission standards compared with trucks,
e.g. the majority of inland vessels will comply with CCNR II
(Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine) and EU Stage
IIIA only by approximately 2025 if no stricter standards are
introduced in the very near future and engines already in service
Figure 1. Distribution of final energy consumption by sector in EU 25 (2003) stay exempt from the new regulations.
according to the European Environmental Agency (EEA).
Regarding emissions to the air, especially with respect to

emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2 (carbon-dioxide), the 0.6 CCNRI
(2002, vessels)
performance of inland vessels is outstanding. On average, the
CO2 emissions of an inland vessel are only about one-third of 0.5
PM emissions (g/kWh)
the ones a truck emits per ton-kilometre (tkm) due to its

approximately three times higher energy efficiency related to Euro
0.4 (1993, trucks)
tkm. Therefore, if cargo is shifted from road to water, inland
navigation can play a significant role in the reduction of
greenhouse gasses as required by the Kyoto Protocol. Also with 0.3 CCNRII /
respect to CO (carbon monoxide) and HC (hydro carbon) EU-Stage IIIA
(2008/2007 vessels)
emissions per tkm, inland navigation is significantly superior to 0.2
road transport. Euro II
Euro III (1996, trucks)
Euro V (2001, trucks)
0.1 (2009, trucks)
EU Stage IV
Legislation regarding sulphur content of fuel, US-EPA
(2010, trucks)
(~ 20012, vessels) Euro IV
(2006, trucks)
NOX and PM emissions 0
0 Euro VI 2 4 6 8 10
SOX (sulphur oxide) emissions are directly related to the sulphur (UBA proposal
2010, trucks) NOx emissions (g/kWh)
content of the fuel. For inland navigation, in accordance with
Directive 1999/32/EC, the maximum sulphur content of fuel is
limited to 0.2 %. Starting from January 2010, this sulphur content
limitation will be reduced to 0.1 % in accordance with Directive Figure 2. Emission standards for inland waterway and road transport.
2005/33/EC, yet still 100 times higher than the sulphur content of
fuel used in road transport today. Therefore, the SOX emissions
associated with inland navigation are actually much higher than Continued >
the ones resulting from road transport, even when related to tkm
(today, these emissions are about 60 times higher).
22
www.bp.com/shipping
The environmental performance of

inland navigation (continued)
Environmental performance of inland The Cleanest Ship

navigation compared with road transport and Application of selective catalytic reduction, particulate matter
achievable compliance with emission standards filters, low sulphur fuel and advising temppomaat was found to
be the most effective and practicable solution to improve the
The comparison is performed for a DDSG -Steinklasse motor
environmental performance of inland navigation. These
cargo vessel pushing a Europe II B barge, sailing from Passau
systems will be implemented in a demonstrator, The Cleanest
(D) to Vidin (BG) and back (2884 km), and trucks in service
Ship, confirming the general applicability of these systems to
complying with the respective EURO standards. For the basic
inland navigation and the emission reduction potential
case (M1, BC) the vessel engine complies with CCNR I standard
evaluated. The demonstration will be carried out on a
and no emission reduction techniques are applied.
lubrication oil tanker owned by BP Shipping, managed by the
The PM and NOX emissions in g/tkm associated with the basic Verenigde Tankrederij (VT) and operating in the Port of
case (M1) are significantly higher than the ones of a truck Rotterdam area. It will last one year, starting by the end of 2007.
complying with EURO V (Fig. 3). Application of selective catalytic The results with respect to NOX, PM, CO2 and SOX emissions
reduction (SCR) to the vessel will give already significant will be monitored and presented on a regular basis at
superiority of the vessel with respect to NOX emissions and www.cleanestship.eu.
equality with respect to PM emissions, compared with the
EURO V truck. Application of selective catalytic reduction, low References
sulphur fuel (LSF), particulate matter filter (PMF) and advising 1. Schweighofer J. and Seiwerth P.: Environmental performance of inland navigation.
Proceedings of the European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference, Visegrád,
tempomaat (ATM) will lead to clear superiority of inland Hungary, June 27th-29th,2007. www.via-donau.org/uploads/media/
navigation with respect to both, NOX and PM emissions, paper_EIWNC_June2007.pdf
compared with the EURO V truck, and equal environmental 2. Kampfer A. and Schweighofer J. et al.: Environmental impact of inland navigation,
CREATING Work Package 6, final report, 2006, to be released 2007.
performance, compared with the EURO VI truck. The most
Authors: Schweighofer Juha and Seiwerth Petra via donau – Österreichische
significant reduction of PM results from the application of the
Wasserstrassen - gesellschaft m.b.H., Austria www.via-donau.org,
particulate matter filter requiring low sulphur fuel. juha.schweighofer@via-donau.org, petra.seiwerth@via-donau.org
Application of selective catalytic reduction, particulate matter
filter and low sulphur fuel to a CCNR I – vessel engine will lead 0.016
0.014
to compliance with EURO V and CCNR III standard (Fig. 4). EURO III (2001)
Compliance with EURO VI standard may be achieved by either 0.012

EURO III truvk (2001)
the application of similar technology as it is used in road EURO IV truck (2006)
0.010 EURO V truck (2009)

transport, including respective fuels, or the introduction of new MCV + barge: CCNR I (2002)
EURO VI truck (2010), UBA proposal)
engine technologies like homogeneous charge compression 0.008 SCR (M2)
ignition (HCCI) and natural gas engines (NGE) to inland SCR + ATM + BD (M4)
SCR + ATM + BDB (M5)
M1
navigation. In Fig. 4, Euro truck and CCNR vessel denote the 0.006
Truck EURO V (2009)
SCR + ATM + LSF (M6)
SCR + ATM + LSF + PMF (M7)
emission limits in g/kWh prescribed by the respective emission 0.004 M3

M2 NGE (M8)
M5 M4 EURO V (2009) EURO IV (2006)

standards for road and inland waterway transport (IWT). M6
0.002
Generally, vessel engines complying with CCNR I (BC) show MCV + barge: SCR +
LSF + PMF + ATM
much better performance than required by the standard with 0
M8
M7
EURO VI
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
respect to PM emissions. (2010)
Inland navigation is in danger to loose its position as more Truck EURO VI (2010, UBA proposal)
environmentally friendly transport mode than road transport in Figure 3. Emission comparison in g/tkm between motor cargo vessel pushing a
barge and trucks in service, considering different emission reduction techniques.
terms of NOX and PM emissions in g/tkm. For emissions in
g/kWh, inland navigation performs already worse than road
0.6
transport. In order to achieve superior environmental CCNR I (V1) Euro I truck (T1)
performance of inland navigation to road transport with respect 0.5

Euro II truck (T2)
Euro III truck (T3)
to all emissions (NOX, PM, CO2, SOX, CO, HC), the very first Euro IV truck (T4)
Euro V truck (T5) = CCNR III (V3)
step to be taken has to be the introduction of LSF (EN 590) to Euro VI UBA prop. truck (T6)
PM emissions 9g/kWh)
0.4
EURO I (T1) CCNR I vessel (V1)
inland navigation. CCNR II vessel (V2)

Basic case (BC)
0.3
Today, the European Commission is considering the introduction Basic case
EGR + Injection systems
Humidification
(BC, IWT today)
of LSF to inland navigation (300 ppm by 2009, and 10 ppm by CCNR II (V2) BC
HCCI
Diesel oxidation catalyst
0.2
2011), and on May 3rd, 2007, at the Round Table of the CCNR, EURO II (T2)
PMF
SCR
SCR + PMF +LSF
consensus was achieved about introducing fuel of equal or 0.1
EURO III (T3) BD
LSF
EURO V (T5)
similar quality to road standard for inland navigation and HCCI, NGE
CCNR III (V3)
NGE
EURO IV (T4) SCR + PMF +LSF
lowering the sulphur content of fuel to 10 ppm in one step as 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
soon as possible. EURO VI (T6)
NOx emissions 9g/kWh)
Figure 4. Comparison of vessel-engine emissions with emissions corresponding

to limit values of standards for road transport (EURO) and inland navigation
(CCNR), considering different emission reduction techniques.
23
Press Book – Press Briefing Clean Waterborne Transport, Brussels, February, 2008
View publication stats

The Cleanest Ship Report 11022009 Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Cleanest Ship Report 11022009 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

FINAL REPORT THE CLEANEST SHIP PROJECT

Technical Report · February 2009

ECCONET View project

Move IT! View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE CLEANEST SHIP PROJECT

Date: February 11th, 2009

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 1 of 26

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 2 of 26

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 3 of 26

Table 2.1: Main particulars of the M/V Victoria.................................................................................... 8

Figure 2.1: Emission reduction techniques applied to the Cleanest Ship............................................... 7

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 4 of 26

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 5 of 26

2. The Cleanest Ship Demonstrator

Moreover there is a cooperation with

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 6 of 26

Figure 2.1: Emission reduction techniques applied to the Cleanest Ship.

Figure 2.2: The Cleanest Ship M/V Victoria.

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 7 of 26

Table 2.1: Main particulars of the M/V Victoria.

Europe number 2327269

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 8 of 26

3. Emission Reduction Techniques

3.1. The Advising Tempomaat

The advising Tempomaat (ATM) is a system enabling an economically optimised operation of a

3.2. Low Sulphur Fuel

3.3. The Nauticlean S System

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 9 of 26

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 10 of 26

3.5. Emission Reduction Expected

NOx PM FC CO2 SOx

ATM (advising Tempomaat) -7% -7% -7% -7% -7%

LSF (low sulphur fuel, EN 590, 10

SCR (selective catalytic reduction) -85% none none none none

PMF (particulate matter filter) none -95%2 +2% +2% +2%

Total emission reduction -86% -96% -5% -5% -99.5%

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 11 of 26

Table 4.1: Results of reference measurements for exhaust emissions.

8 100 % engine loading, direct measurement

4.1.1. SOX Emissions

Figure 4.1: SOX emissions per week.

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 12 of 26

Figure 4.2: Total SOX emissions.

4.1.2. NOX Emissions

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 13 of 26

Figure 4.3: NOX emissions per week measured.

Figure 4.4: NOX emissions per week measured in g/kWh.

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 14 of 26

Figure 4.5: Total NOX emissions.

4.1.3. Particulate Matter Emissions

Figure 4.6: PM emissions per week calculated.

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 15 of 26

Figure 4.7: PM emissions per week in g/kWh calculated.

Figure 4.8: Total PM emissions.

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 16 of 26

4.1.4. Fuel Consumption

Figure 4.9: Fuel consumption per week measured.

Date: 11/02/2009 Page 17 of 26

4.1.5. CO2 Emissions

Figure 4.10: CO2 emissions per week.

4.1.6. Trucks Removed from Road