Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management: X

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/energy-conversion-and-management-x

A multi-criteria approach for comparing alternative fuels and energy

systems onboard ships
M. Rivarolo *, S. Piccardo , G.N. Montagna , D. Bellotti
Thermochemical Power Group (TPG), University of Genoa, Via Montallegro 1, 16145 Genoa, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper aims to present the upgrade of the Helper for Energy Layouts in Maritime applications (HELM)
Alternative fuels software tool, developed by the authors to compare traditional and innovative systems for energy production and
Maritime transportation storage onboard maritime vessels. The algorithm adopts a multi-criteria method and it carries out the analysis on
Energy systems
a large and updated database of market solutions. A wide range of maps is implemented in the tool, correlating
Fuel cells
Multi-criteria analysis
costs, volumes, weights, emissions and fuel environmental hazards with energy demand, applicative scenario and
vessel type. The equations implemented in the software and the algorithm employed to evaluate and compare the
technologies are reported. In this work, four different vessels are investigated, namely: (i) a small sail yacht; (ii) a
small passenger ferry for inland water navigation; (iii) a large cruise ship; (iv) a large container ship. For each
case study, the choice of the best solution is performed, considering the constraints, the inputs and the single
parameters: in all cases, the solution chosen corresponds to the real one installed on board or to a solution that is
going to be installed. It is worth noting that the multi-criteria analysis has a general approach, allowing to give
preliminary information on the best energy system solution, also to comply with the application requirements (i.
e. pollutant emissions in ports and restricted areas).

least 40 % by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70 % by 2050, compared to

1. Introduction
It is a matter of fact that CO2 emissions due to anthropogenic ac­
tivities have dramatically increased in the last thirty years, up to the
record value of 36.8 Gtons in 2022 [1], raising concerns about global
warming. Electricity and heat production, industry and transport are the
most impacting sectors, with 14.6, 9.1 and 8.0 Gtons respectively. The
impact of the maritime sector is significant, with an increase in terms of
CO2 from 962 Mtons to 1056 Mtons (+9.6 %) from 2012 to 2018 [2].
Nowadays, almost 99 % of operating maritime vessels adopt the
Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) technology for propulsion; consid­
ering the state-of-the-art technology, Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) and Marine
Diesel Oil (MDO) are the most commonly employed fuels, with a sig­
nificant impact in terms of CO2 and local pollutants, i.e., NOx, SOx and
particulate matter [3]. The International Maritime Organization (IMO)
has set many regulations in recent years to limit emissions, with the
creation of many Emission Control Areas (ECAs) for sulphur and nitro­
gen oxides (NOx) limitation, in particular in coastal areas [4 5]. IMO
also set an initial strategy in 2018 (an updated version will be published
in 2023), aiming at reducing CO2 emissions from transport work by at
2008 [6]. To reach these targets, the introduction of low-carbon fuels
and innovative technologies is mandatory. The replacement of HFO with
liquid natural gas (LNG) fuelled engines is the first step but it is not
sufficient [7 8 9]. Thus, other alternative fuels [10], i.e. ammonia (NH3)
and methanol (MeOH) [11], to be used in ICEs also in combination with
other fuels, have been investigated in recent literature [12 13 14].
As many technologies for both propulsion and energy storage on­
board are commercially achievable and the interest in low-carbon
innovative technologies is growing fast [15 16 17], it is important to
analyse all the possible solutions to find the most interesting ones taking
into proper account the vessel type. Therefore, the use of a comparative
methodology able to manage a large amount of data and parameters
becomes fundamental to facilitate the design process.
Although the interest in maritime sector decarbonisation is widely
recognized in the literature and by stakeholders, both in terms of ship
building process [18], and ship operative life [19 20], software tools and
algorithms to perform multi-criteria analysis comparing many energy
solutions for different maritime vessels are still limited. Karaçay et al.
performed a comparative analysis between MDO and LNG referred to
tug boats, focusing on techno-economic aspects [21]. Other authors,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Massimo.rivarolo@unige.it (M. Rivarolo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2023.100460
Received 6 July 2023; Received in revised form 23 September 2023; Accepted 25 September 2023
Available online 27 September 2023
2590-1745/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Rivarolo et al.
Nomenclature
Abbreviations Descriptions
BAT Batteries
BoP Balance of Plant
CH2 Compressed Hydrogen
CAPEX Capital Expenditures
DF Dual Fuel
ECAs Emission Control Areas
FC Fuel Cell
FO Fuel Oil
GHG Green House Gases
HELM Helper for Energy Layouts in Maritime applications
HFO Heavy Fuel Oil
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
such as Helgason et al [22] compared many fuels for maritime appli­
cations (methanol, natural gas and MDO) focusing on the economic
aspects mainly. Priftis et al. [23] applied multi objective optimisation to
the design of a single containership, aiming to maximise the capacity
and the stowage ratios and to minimize the EEDI and the overall ship
resistance. Pesce et al. [24] performed a multi-criteria decision analysis
to compare different route alternatives in Venice for cruise ships,
considering economic, social and environmental aspects. Aspen et al.
[25] applied a stochastic multi-criteria decision analytical approach to
reduce emissions on a Norwegian ferry comparing different energy
carrier solutions. Iannaccone et al. [26] performed a multi-criteria
analysis based on sustainability KPIs, considering environment, eco­
nomics and safety aspects to compare LNG and MDO based solutions.
More recently, Zanobetti et al. [27] proposed a multi-criteria sustain­
ability assessment methodology, based on specific indicators addressing
the technological, economic, environmental, and safety performance of
ship power systems.
Other example of multi-criteria usage to compare solutions are pre­
sented in recent literature [28 29 30]. However, based on the authors’
knowledge and wide literature review, the development of multi-criteria
decision supporting tools to compare different energy systems for energy
production and storage onboard, comprehensive of the main commer­
cial and pre-commercial solutions, able to evaluate volumes, weights,
costs, emissions and environmental hazard at the same time, also
considering ships’ constraints, have not been developed yet.
Considering the importance of identifying the best technology solu­
tion for energy generation and storage onboard, and the lack of tools
which allow one to carry out an overview about this issue, the authors
have developed a multi criteria approach software for maritime appli­
cations, named HELM, to meet these objectives comparing different
power units (PU) and considering as many suitable fuels as possible,
relatively with user requests. The HELM approach carries out the tech­
nology comparison through the numerical definition of many relevant
criteria (key-parameters), with a large database implemented inside the
software, based on updated market data in terms of energy production
and storage technologies.
The HELM approach was described in a recent publication [31];
however, considering that the approach needs to be further validated on
real vessels and considering that different aspects were not taken into
proper account in the previous version (i.e. influence of ship typology
and constraints, impact of some criteria). In this paper, the authors aim
to present an updated and advanced version of HELM, demonstrating its
potentialities and validating it by mean of four different real vessels,
already in operation or in advanced design stage.
2
Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460
IMO International Maritime Organization
LH2 Liquid Hydrogen
LNG Liquid Natural Gas
MDO Marine Diesel Oil
MeOH Methanol
MH Metal Hydrides
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
OPEX Operational Expenditures
PEMFC Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell
PU Power Unit
REL Relevance
SCR Selective Catalytic Reactor
SOFC Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
SOx Sulphur Oxides
TEU Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units
2. Software & algorithm descriptions
The HELM software adopts a multi-criteria approach to compare
different technologies for the onboard energy production, properly
coupling power units and storage systems, including auxiliaries as well.
As indicated in the algorithm flow chart (shown in Fig. 1), by means of a
quite large number of inputs, the software compares the solutions and
assigns a score for each technology and evaluation criteria. These are
defined by means of both maps, which correlates energy requirements
inputs with key-parameter (or evaluation criteria) values and relevance,
depending on the Application characters inputs. Once the scoring evalu­
ation process is completed, results obtained by single criteria are sum­
med, identifying a total score for each solution, and finalizing the
comparison analysis.
Criteria on which the analysis is based are volume, weight, emis­
sions, both in terms of CO2 and NOx, costs and environmental hazards.
This last criteria was not present in the previous HELM version [31] and
has been added to consider potential harmful fuel effect in case of an
outboard fuel spillage event. It is strongly affected by the fuel typology,
thus it represents an important criteria to evaluate the effect of alter­
native fuels.
The Environmental Hazard parameter is described through four
gauges that provide the potential damage of each fuel. They are split
into: (i) two gauges whose effects concern the atmosphere; (ii) two
gauges whose effects concern water contamination. Regarding the first
ones, global warming potential (GWP20), which defines the CO2 emis­
sions in a range of 20 years [32], and the gas permanence in the at­
mosphere (gas lifetime), are considered. Water contamination effects
include LD50 and fuel solubility. LD50 is the dosage of a certain sub­
stance which causes the death of 50 % of a test animals group exposed
for 4 h [33] while solubility in water identifies the capability of a sub­
stance to be dissolved in water, allowing a drop in its concentration
within the harmful threshold in a certain time. Concerning the Envi­
ronmental Hazard parameter, a distinction is made for the different fuels.
Gaseous fuels at ambient conditions mostly affect atmospheric gauges
(GWP20 and gas lifetime), while liquid fuels, in the same conditions,
have more influence on the gauges affecting water dispersion (LD50 and
solubility). The only exception is for anhydrous NH3, for which, due
both to its high toxicity and solubility in water, both effects are
considered.
According to Fig. 1, a large number of inputs is required to start the
comparative analysis, divided in two main categories: primary and
secondary inputs. The first set includes the energy requirements which
are necessary to define magnitudes used as map inputs. Maps are the
HELM’s core and they allow to link energy inputs with the volume,
weight, cost for each technology component, and emissions for the only
power unit, as Fig. 2 shows.
M. Rivarolo et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460

Fig. 1. Algorithm description.

Fig. 2. Description of the input–output relation.

The ICE plot of power – weight is an example of one used plot as a
market analysis result, and it is shown in Fig. 3.
Maps have been identified as a result of a wide market data analysis,
allowing to build mathematical correlations which best approximate the
wide available commercial data. Correlations implemented in the soft­
ware are reported in Tab. 1.
Secondary inputs are: Vessel Type, Vessel Dimensions, Navigation
Type and ECAs Permanency. They allow to define both volume
threshold, excluding the technologies which require excessive space
onboard, and relevance for each criteria, according to vessel type,
navigation route and information obtained from different stakeholders.
Relevance are used to weight the different criteria, from a minimum of 1
to a maximum of 5. The previous HELM version left the choice of their
values to the user; hence, to adopt a more scientific and objective
approach, the relevance identification is now connected to the second­
ary input setting, added for this purpose.
Once defined inputs, HELM calculates the score for each key-
parameter and technology, as reported in Eq.(1 ). It is worth noting

3
M. Rivarolo et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460

Fig. 3. Of market analysis plot.

that the scoring method has been enhanced to better automize and In order to avoid possible mathematical inconsistencies, previous
standardize the scoring assignation process, compared to the one pre­ score identification has been modified for some particular cases. It is
sented in the previous version [31]. possible that some key-parameters assume zero value for the best
vbest technology (e.g. CO2 and NOx emissions for PEMFCs). In this case vbesti is
Sij = coeffi ⋅ i ⋅ Ri (1) always equal to zero, while vij can assume both zero or generic value,
vij
depending on the technology analysed. This leads to an undetermined
i-index represents the ith criteria and j-index represents the jth energy form or to a zero score, respectively. Therefore, when both vbesti and vij
system. The numerical comparison is based on the ratio between the are equal to zero, ratio represented in Eq.(1 ), is substituted with its
minimum generic key-parameter value identified for the best technology maximum achievable value (2), while if the only vbesti is zero, the same
(vbest i ) and the generic key-parameter value assumed by the generic ratio is modified as represented in Eq. (3), and a decreasing factor is
( )
technology vij . Relevance (Ri ) for each key-parameter is considered by introduced into the formula.
the software. In order to keep the score value within a more appreciable vbesti ≡ vij = 0 Sij = coeffi ⋅1 ⋅Ri (2)
range, coeffi , depending on the considered criteria, is introduced in Eq.
(1). Volume, weight and cost scores are defined directly from their ab­ vbest
vbesti = 0; vij ∕
=0 Sij = coeffi ⋅ i ⋅ Decrj ⋅Ri (3)
solute values, while emissions score is identified taking into account CO2 vij
and NOx emission sub-parameters. Therefore, in this case, both CO2 and
NOx scores are evaluated and summed when global emission score is In Eq.(3 ) vbesti represents the minimum value, different to zero, related
calculated. For this difference among the first three key-parameters and to a generic criteria, while Decrj , defined in Eq.(4 ), has been introduced
emissions one, coeff i assumes different values in relation to the criteria. in order to decrease the score adequately from the best technology one.
Concerning environmental hazard score, the same considerations are
Decrj = 1 − (vbesti /maxi ) (4)
valid, since it is based on four sub-parameter (GWP20, fuel solubility in
water, LD50, and fuel lifetime in the atmosphere), as reported in Table 2
The comparison is different for each application and it is performed as a
numerical technique by using the weighted sum multi criteria approach.
Table 2 Therefore, a total score for each technology is calculated as final output
Coefficient values related with considered parameter. through Eq. (5). This process is carried out for each technology system
Key-parameter Sub-parameter Coefficient value and for each criterion involved in the analysis.
(criteria) ∑( )
TotScorej = Sij (5)
Volume – 10 i
Weight – 10
Cost – 10 Following the commonly used design process to investigate energy field
Emissions CO2 Emissions 5
NOx Emissions 5
in the maritime sector, the most useful measures are: weight, volume
Environmental Hazard GWP20 2.5 and cost. To consider the low environmental impact, two criteria are
Solubility in water 2.5 evaluated: emissions (mainly CO2 and NOx) and the environmental
Lifetime 2.5 hazard, in case of fuel outboard spillage. Concerning costs’ calculation,
LD50 2.5
values of both operating expenditures (OPEX) and capital expenditures

4
M. Rivarolo et al.
(CAPEX) are included in the analysis, considering the expected lifetime
for each PUs and tanks. Annual OPEX value is calculated as percentage
of CAPEX in the range 2 – 4 % [34], depending on the technology.
Lifetime is defined to consider components’ replacement during ship
operational life (assumed equal to 30 years). However, components
replacing is not always feasible, especially for large ship sizes, due to
both PU and storage systems’ dimensions and their integration into the
ship spaces. In order to replace these systems, relevant interventions
would be necessary. Thus, in this case, extraordinary maintenance costs
are added to standard OPEX.
The technology solutions currently included are shown in Fig. 4,
which represents the inputs setup HELM interface, including installed
power, autonomy, average efficiency for the different solutions, ship
type and navigation areas.
2.1. Energy solutions
In order to take into account a wide range of suitable combinations to
be installed on board, both for the propulsion energy requirements and
for the hotel load, the different technologies in Tab. 3 have been
implemented in the HELM tool starting from solutions already available
on the market. For each technology, maps are built from the database of
the commercial products, building the correlations reported in Table 3.
2.1.1. Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs)
Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFC) are one of the most
promising solutions to zero pollutant emissions for maritime applica­
tions, in particular for small and medium size vessels [35]. Currently,
PEMFC market available solutions for maritime applications do not
exceed 240 kW power [36 37 38 39], although modules can be com­
bined to reach higher power (1–2 MW). PEMFCs have high efficiency,
also at partial loads (between 45 % and 55 %) [40]. As they require pure
H2 as fuel, they emit only water, thus they are a carbon free solution.
Furthermore, they present low noise and vibrations, making them an
Fig. 4. Input interface of HELM software.
5
Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460
attractive solution for navigation in restricted areas (i.e ECAs) and ports
[41]. This technology requires 99.99 % pure H2, because of the high
platinum catalyst sensitivity towards carbon based impurities. Today,
their average lifetime for mobility application is estimated in 7–8 years.
For maritime applications, batteries are coupled with the PEMFC in
hybrid systems to manage peak loads and to avoid the electrical load
power fluctuations being absorbed by the FC, increasing the degradation
level [42 43]. In HELM database, twenty PEMFC products are used to
build volume, weight and cost maps: the main functions are reported in
Tab. 1.
2.1.2. Solid Oxide fuel cells (SOFCs)
Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC) are another potential solution to
reduce the environmental impact of maritime sector. SOFCs are usually
fed by natural gas, but different fuels (methanol, biogas, etc.) can be
used; they work at very high temperature (from 800 to 1,000 ◦ C) and
their electrical efficiency is high (50–60 %) [44], in particular in case of
hybrid systems [45 46]. Also the coupling with ICE for maritime ap­
plications has been recently investigated as well [47]. On the other
hand, due to high temperatures, they should operate at constant loads to
avoid thermal stress [40] and, for the same reason, they present long
start-up time (>2h) [48]. Currently available SOFC modules are char­
acterised by power ranges between 1 kW and about 300 kW, with the
possibility of combining different modules to reach 1 MW power. They
have been tested in maritime prototypes in recent years mainly as
Auxiliary Propulsion Units with positive results. In HELM, SOFC are
fuelled by liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is the standard solution.
Volume and weight maps have been defined from market research
involving the main producers [49 50], while costs and CO2 emissions
and maps have been obtained from recent literature [51 52]. In HELM
database, six SOFC products are used to build volume, weight and cost
maps and correlations reported in Tab. 1.
M. Rivarolo et al.
Table 3
Energy systems implemented in HELM.
Technology PEMFC SOFC ICE MDO
Type PU PU PU
N Analysed Manufacturers 10 2 4
N Analysed Products 20 6 139
Technology MH CH2 LH2
Type Tank Tank Tank
N Analysed Manufacturers 4 5 2 5
N Analysed Products 21 30 4 30
2.1.3. Internal combustion engines (ICEs)
The ICE is the most common power generator for the maritime
sector, due to the good performance, technological maturity, easiness of
maintenance, costs and versatility. It provides a large power range from
20 kW up to 80 MW, and it is fed mainly with MDO but also low-carbon
or zero carbon fuels can be used with small adjustments.
Maps for ICEs fuelled by MDO have been identified consistently by a
market analysis involving the main manufacturers [5354 55], while the
emission values are obtained from [56]. Selective Catalytic Reactor
(SCR) is included as well to reduce SOx and NOx emissions under the
limits established by IMO.
Dual fuel (DF) ICEs are gaining a fair share of the market in view of
the possibility of being fed by alternative and conventional fuels. DF
compression ignition ICEs fuelled by LNG and methanol (MeOH) are
both implemented in HELM. Due to the high LNG autoignition tem­
perature, this technology needs a small pilot MDO amount which is able
to start the combustion. The alternative fuel energy amount is defined in
percentage as substitution ratio and generally it is about 99 %, therefore
this value as default benchmark in HELM for the DF compression igni­
tion ICEs fed by LNG and MDO. LNG-ICE are manufactured as Tier III
engines avoiding the SOx/NOx SCR installation [57 58]. The CAPEX
have been extrapolated from the comparison developed in, assuming an
increase of around 5 % compared to a conventional MDO engine [59].
Values related to the emissions are obtained from the same reference
used for MDO.
MeOH and MDO DF compression ignition ICEs are another possible
solution to reduce carbon emissions. This technology is not spread like
the previous one, but some applications already exist (i.e. Stena Ger­
manica [60]). MeOH needs MDO as pilot fuel, in this case with a sub­
stitution ratio equal to 95 % [61 62], implemented as default value in
HELM. For this technology only NOx SCR is needed to be compliant with
Tier III.
In the case of ICEs fuelled by NH3, spark ignition engines have been
taken into account. This technology foresees the need to enhance com­
bustion by means of H2, directly extracted from NH3 in a cracking unit,
which has, together with the same NH3, high autoignition temperatures.
An NH3 substitution ratio equal to 95 % is assumed [63 64]. Concerning
emissions only NOx SCR is needed, due to sulphur absence inside NH3
molecule.
More than two hundred and thirty ICE products, mono and DF type
both, are used to build volume, weight and cost maps: the main func­
tions are reported in Tab. 1.
2.1.4. Hydrogen (H2)
To reach the energy transition target, H2 is one of the most promising
fuels for the maritime sector and there are many research projects on the
feasibility [65] of the infrastructure and for on board production. It
presents strong environmental advantages (zero carbon emissions) and
high LHV (120 MJ/kg). On the other hand, H2 has low density at
ambient conditions (0.089 kg/m3), and its volumetric energy density is
low. In terms of safety, it presents a very wide flammability range (4–75
% in air) and very low ignition energy. Since hydrogen is a gas, its
impact on the environment affects only the air pollution due to its long-
duration permanence in the atmosphere. In HELM, the considered
storage method are liquid, compressed and metal hydrides, as reported
6
Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460
ICE LNG ICE MeOH ICE NH3
PU PU PU
4 4 2
84 8 2
LNG MeOH MDO NH3
Tank Tank Tank Tank
6 6 2
32 36 8
in Table 1.
2.2. Metal hydrides (MH)
Metal hydrides (MH) are metal powders able to store pure H2 in a
chemical way and release it providing thermal management [66]. The
advantages of this system are the low operation pressure (max 40[bar])
[67], the low volume and also the powder recyclability; while the main
drawbacks are the weight, the high cost, and the low durability, set at 8
years. However, weight drawback can be overcome in maritime appli­
cations thanks to a proper ship design, i.e. storing the hydrogen under
the keel: in this way, metal hydrides can improve the vessel’s stability.
2.3. Compressed hydrogen (CH2)
Compressed hydrogen tanks (CH2) are able to store high pressure gas
from 200 up to 700 [bar] and the manufacture materials can be polymer
or metal. Also, the container film can be in polymer or in aluminium.
While metal tanks have been widely used for gas delivery, the polymer
tank is more recent as its lightness raises high interest, but in both cases a
good lifetime (20 years) is guaranteed. The most used and available
pressure values are 200, 250, 350 and 700 [bar], all the options are
implemented in HELM in order to increase the design comparison ac­
curacy.The main advantages of CH2 are the relatively low cost and the
durability. While the disadvantage is safety, as the only available posi­
tion on board can be over the top and with a certain distance from
passenger access.
2.4. Liquefied hydrogen (LH2)
Liquefied hydrogen (LH2) is the storage system in cryogenic condi­
tions at − 253 ◦ C, with H2 density 71 [kg/m3], significantly higher than
CH2 at 700 [bar]. However, a significant amount of energy is necessary
to reach cryogenic temperature and maintain it. The tank has an insu­
lation layer to maintain the low temperature and the structure has to be
able to contain the boil-off phenomena [68] but also it needs a dedicated
chiller plan. Therefore, the volume system is contained and the dura­
bility is quite long, 20 years as CH2, while the main drawbacks are the
boil-off management and the cryogenic plant complexity.
2.4.1. Liquefied natural gas (LNG)
LNG is an alternative fuel, mainly composed of methane, which
allow one to drastically abate NOx emissions and reduce those of CO2
[69 70]. LNG is stored under cryogenic conditions (-162 ◦ C) at ambient
pressure, so it requires particular storage systems which need to with­
stand particular design standards, the Type-C tanks [71]. LNG Type C
tanks lifetime is 20 years, while Environmental Hazard for this fuel is
defined by atmospheric effect, since it is gaseous at ambient conditions.
In HELM, 30 commercial products are included to build maps and
extrapolate the functions reported in Tab. 1.
2.4.2. Marine Diesel Oil (MDO)
MDO is the most employed fuel in the maritime sector thanks to its
high energy density at ambient condition. The storage system is a cyl­
inder able to support the liquid pressure, therefore the volume, weight
M. Rivarolo et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460

Table 1
Extrapolated function by the market analysis.
CH2 350 9.98 • Mkg + 21.295 CH2 700 13.601 • Mkg + 6.0688
Volume = 0.058 • Mkg + 0.0098Weight = CAPEX Volume = 0.0404 • Mkg + 0.0059Weigh = CAPEX
bar 1, 000 bar 1, 000
=5 • Vlitres =5 • Vlitres

LNG Volume = 0.0021 • Vlitres + 2.8698Weight = 0.00021 • Vlitres + MeOH Volume = 0.0016 • Vlitres + 2.5732CAPEX = 0.1096 • Vlitres + 2, 313.
3.7497Vlitres < 60, 000 lCAPEX = 5.6324 • Vlitres 60, 000 l ≤ Vlitres ≤ 100, 6Vlitres ≤ 40 lWeight = (0.06 • Vlitres + 855.8)/1, 00040 l < Vlitres < 1,
000 lCAPEX = 1.59 • Vlitres + 254, 104Vlitres > 100, 000 lCAPEX = 500 lWeight = (0.369 • Vlitres + 843.16)/1, 000Vlitres ≥ 1, 500 lWeight =
1.8441 • Vlitres (0.0784 • Vlitres + 1, 279.1)/1, 000
LH2 Volume = 0.023 • Mkg Weight = 10.335 • Mkg CAPEX = 21.255 • Vlitres MDO Vlitres ≤ 26, 000lVolume = 0.001 • Vlitres + 3.0475Weight =
0.0002 • Vlitres + 0.4224CAPEX = 0.3547 • Vlitres + 476.08Vlitres > 26,
000lVolume = 59.32 • log(Vlitres ) − 572Weight = 0.00009 • Vlitres +
Mkg
2.5753 − CAPEX = 33, 453 • log(Vlitres ) − 329, 422
1, 000
MH Volume = 51.217 • MH2 /1000Weight = 112.73 • MH2 /1000MH2 < Li-ion 4.6999 • EBat 6.769 • EBat
Volume = Weight = CAPEX = 0.189 • EBat • 1,
1 kgCAPEX = 7333 • ln(MH2 ) + 24536MH2 > 1 kgCAPEX = Batteries 1, 000 1, 000
10500 • MH2 000
PEMFC PMax < 30 kWVolume = − 0.0071 • Pel,n + 0.5172Weight = SOFC Volume = 0.1035 • Pel,n + 1.4387Weight = 0.0521 • Pel,n + 1.3945PMax <
0.0011 • Pel,n + 0.1393PMax ≥ 30 kWVolume = ( )0,6
1, 000 kWCAPEX = 15, 540 • Pel,n PMax ≥ 1, 000 kWCAPEX = 1, 000 •
0.0091 • Pel,n − 0.1431Weight = 0.0039 • Pel,n − 0.0268PMax < 1, Pel,n CO2 [kg] = 2.75*kgLNG NOx [kg] = 0
( )0,6
000 kWCAPEX = 14, 374 • Pel,n PMax ≥ 1, 000 kWCAPEX = 1, 000 •
Pel,n CO2 [kg] = 0NOx [kg] = 0
ICE - MDO PMax < 3, 500 kWVolume = 2 • 10− 6
• Pel,n 2 + 0.0131 • Pel,n Weight = DF ICE PMax < 3, 500 kWVolume = 2 • 10− 6
• Pel,n 2 + 0.0054 • Pel,n Weight =
2 • 10− 6 • Pel,n 2 + 0.0064 • Pel,n CAPEX = 498.489 • Pel,n + 10, 1393, –MDO & 2 • 10− 6 • Pel,n 2 + 0.0049 • Pel,n 3, 500 ≤ PMax ≤ 4, 100 kWVolume =
500 ≤ PMax ≤ 4, 100 kWVolume = 0.1074 • Pel,n − 303.85Weight = LNG 0.066 • Pel,n − 175Weight = 0.068 • Pel,n − 201.83PMax > 4,
0.1232 • Pel,n − 393.96CAPEX = 435.769 • Pel,n + 228,408PMax > 4, 100 kWVolume = 0.0094 • Pel,n 1.1087 Weight = 0.0021 • Pel,n 1.2631 CO2 [kg] =
100 kWVolume = 0.0329 • Pel,n Weight = 0.0266 • Pel,n CAPEX = 8.4
2.75*kgLNG NOx [kg] = *kgLNG
564.119 • Pel,n − 295, 264CO2 [kg] = 3.206 • kgMDO NOx [kg] = 3.4 • 1, 000
LHVMDO • kgMDO /3.6SOx [kg] = 0.02 • kgMDO • 21/1, 000
DF ICE – PMax < 3, 500 kWVolume = 2 • 10− 6
• Pel,n 2 + 0.011 • Pel,n Weight = DF ICE –H2 PMax < 3, 500 kWVolume = 2 • 10− 6
• Pel,n 2 + 0.011 • Pel,n Weight =
MDO & − 6 2
2 • 10 • Pel,n + 0.0064 • Pel,n PMax > 4, 100 kWVolume = 0.0308 • & NH3 − 6 2
2 • 10 • Pel,n + 0.0064 • Pel,n CAPEX =
MeOH Pel,n Weight = 0.0265 • Pel,n CO2 [kg] = 0.069 • LHVMeOH •
[ ]
1.15 • 409.02 • Pel,n +10, 139 3, 500 ≤ PMax < 4, 100 kWVolume =
kgMeOH NOx [kg] = 0.0004 • LHVMeOH • kgMeOH SOx [kg] = 0.01 • SOx MDO 0.1053 • Pel,n − 303.85Weight = 0.1231 • Pel,n − 393.96CAPEX =
[ ]
1.15 • 346.3 • Pel,n +228, 408 4 , 100 ≤ PMax ≤ 70, 000 kWVolume =
0.0308 • Pel,n − 303.85Weight = 0.0265 • Pel,n − 393.96CAPEX =
[ ]
1.15 • 474.65 • Pel,n − 295, 264 CO2 [kg] = 0NOx [kg] = 3.4/1000 •
LHVMeOH • kgMeOH /3.6

and cost are low. Also the BOP components are common, only in case of
huge MDO storage, a purification system is needed. On the other hand,
MDO has some disadvantages due to the high emissions and the Envi­
ronmental Hazard for the sea life (high LD50, not miscible) and therefore,
to comply with the regulations, the storage system requires additional
components. In HELM, the SCR impact is considered to reduce the SOx
and NOx emissions up to the required values. In HELM, 36 commercial
products are included to build maps and extrapolate the functions re­
ported in Tab. 1.
2.4.3. Methanol (MeOH)
MeOH is an interesting alternative fuel due to its liquid form at
ambient condition and its energy density, that guarantees a contained
storage volume and weight, but also reduced emissions and low envi­
ronmental hazard, indeed it is not lethal and it is completely miscible
[10]. As just told, MeOH is ready to be the fuel of the DF ICE combined
with MDO with limited modifies. MeOH main disadvantage is its low
energy density compared to MDO, which requires 2–3 times volume to
store the same energy amount. In HELM, more than 30 commercial tanks
from many manufactures have been considered, in a wide capacity range
(20–35,000 L).
2.4.4. Ammonia (NH3)
NH3 is a carbon free fuel which can be directly used inside ICEs or as
H2 carrier. In this case a cracking process needs to be realized [72]. Due
to its high autoignition temperature and to poor combustion features, a
pilot fuel is needed both for compression ignition and spark ignition
[13]. The only harmful emission is represented by NOx, due to NH3
higher nitrogen content in comparison with previous fuels; therefore, a
SCR needs to be installed⋅NH3 is liquid at limited temperatures (− 33 ◦ C
at atmospheric pressure) which, together with its high latent heat of
vaporization, allows one to reduce boil off rate, limiting technical dif­
ficulties of cryogenic conditions fuel handling. This fuel presents zero
greenhouse effect and it is highly soluble in water (517 kg/l H2O). On
the other hand it is also highly toxic for humans and aquatic life: 300
ppm are identified as Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH)
threshold defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administra­
tion (OSHA). This feature poses major challenges regarding onboard
handling and storage safety. Currently different studies and tests have
been carried out in view of the interest shown by the maritime sector for
this fuel but no onboard applications are available yet. In HELM, eight
commercial tanks have been considered.
2.4.5. Batteries (BAT)
Batteries are electrochemical devices capable of converting chemical
energy of an electrochemically active material into electrical energy.
Due to the spontaneous discharge reactions, batteries are characterised
by high efficiencies and, moreover, power can be provided very quickly.
Different battery types are available on the market; one of the best
performing and most employed technology is represented by lithium-ion
batteries, able to reach high energy densities, about 150 Wh/kg [73] and
185 Wh/l [74], thus they are commonly used in a large number of
portable electronic devices, energy storage plants and, more recently, in
automotive and maritime applications. The Lithium-ion battery pack is
implemented in HELM to consider the required hybrid condition of the
fuel cell [75], because batteries allow one to reduce power time response
and improve electrical load management [76]. They present a high life
cycle number of discharge and no memory effect, avoiding the necessity
of the complete discharge before recharging. On the other hand, main
disadvantages are: high prices, temperature sensibility and possibility of
ignition. Indeed lithium-ion batteries are subject to a faster degradation,
affecting lifetime and performances, if exposed to extreme temperatures

7
M. Rivarolo et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460

and they can ignite if used in improper way or physically damaged. In this specific case. All the input values are reported in Table 4.
HELM, more than thirty devices by ten productors are considered. The results in terms of scores are shown in Fig. 5: HELM suggests the
internal ICE fuelled by MDO as the best solution, due to the MDO high
3. Results – Case studies and helm validation energy density, its storage simplicity and high maturity. This technology
allows one to have a simple storage system having low values for vol­
As described in Section 2, the algorithm presented in [31] has been ume, weight and cost and especially for a small vessel without a fuel pre-
upgraded to have an updated version of the HELM software, able to treatment system. Indeed, the high score of ICE-MDO technology is
perform a more complete analysis. More in detail, the main novelties mainly driven by the volume score, due to the high REL on volume for
are: this case study (Tab. 4). However, CO2 and NOx emissions are high for
the ICE-MDO (Tab. 5). PEMFC fuelled by H2 is an interesting alternative
• Implementation of the Environmental Hazard criteria in case of solution, since their emissions are zero and the environmental aspect
outboard fuel spillage assumes high relevance in this scenario. However, hydrogen storage
• Scientific approach for the Relevance, thanks to the implementation onboard requires much more space and they are characterised by
of secondary inputs related to vessel important weights and costs, compared to ICE-MDO, in particular in
• Volume Threshold implementation linked with “Vessel Dimensions” case of MH storage system (Table 5). The PEMFC fuelled by LH2 presents
user input a good score, however the storage systems are cryogenic to keep the fuel
• Introduction of batteries to simulate hybrid systems (i.e. fuel cells + in liquid form at − 253 ◦ C, and the management is very complex for this
batteries) application; the other technology solutions have lower scores. Thus, the
best alternative to ICE-MDO results PEMFC with CH2 at 350 [bar].
However, in light to the HELM apported improvements, it is
mandatory to perform a software validation, by means of different 3.2. Passenger ferry for inland navigation
already existing case studies.
HELM approach can be employed for different kinds of vessels and The interest in inland navigation is high, due to the relevant impact
mission profiles: in this section, several case studies are presented and of the pollution in these areas where the water has low recirculation and
discussed. More in detail, the software is applied to a sail yacht, a pas­ the number of commercial/touristic vessels are high. In this framework,
senger ferry, a cruise ship and a container ship, characterised by strong the EC has recently launched the RH2IWER project [78] to accelerate
differences in terms of maximum power, mission profile, navigation the adoption of hydrogen fuel cell powered vessels in inland waterway
areas and frequency: the results obtained throughout HELM are transport, considering several case studies on rivers and the replicability
compared with real solutions installed on board for the case studies to on Italian lakes. In this framework, the Lake Maggiore scenario in Italy is
obtain a validation of the software reliability. analysed and the Tonale ferry boat is considered. The vessel has 54.4
[m] of length over all and with a beam of 10.8 [m], it can host nearly
1000 people. It is equipped with two propellers and two main engines
3.1. Sail yacht
that provide nearly 600 [kW] with traditional MDO engines. One of the
project’s aims is to consider the retrofitting, installing a similar PEMFC
The first case study is based on the energy characteristics of a sailing
power, with hydrogen stored in compressed tanks at 350 bar. The main
yacht for cruise and race mainly designed for the Mediterranean Sea, the
data are reported in Table 6.
Pelotari [77] project launched in April 2019. It is 20 m long, about 5 m
To set the inputs for the analysis, the route typology and the activity
wide, its upwind sail plane has an area of 152 m2 and it is equipped with
period have been investigated to define the number of operational hours
a 30 kW diesel ICE, but the builder shipyard aims to design a similar
and the navigation frequency. This kind of vessels are characterised by
yacht fully carbon-free and powered by hybrid system with PEMFC and
short routes (a few hours at low speed) and are active mainly from
BAT with MH for H2 storage onboard.
March to October (7 months per year). The passenger ferry is a ship with
To carry out the analysis, a study of the operative profile has been
a pay load characterised by the passengers, it needs availability in terms
done and for this kind of vessel a required power of 30 kW provided for
of space, while the weight influence is lower, hence the REL values of
10 h was considered; the vessel is generally employed for coastal navi­
these two parameters for the pax ferry are chosen as medium and low,
gation in summer season only, thus with low frequency during the year.
respectively. Since it operates for tourism in protected areas, the emis­
Furthermore, a pressure value of 350 bar is assumed for CH2. As far as
sions have maximum importance, while the cost relevance is minimum
Fuel Cell system is concerned, a BAT contribution for the energy unit is
as this kind of solution is investigated mainly in research funded
assumed equal to 15 %.
projects.
Since this yacht is a leisure craft and generally operates close to the
For passenger Ferry case study, used for inland navigation, (Fig. 6),
coast or in protected areas, special attention is considered for emission
PEMFC fuelled by LH2 or CH2 and hybridized by Li-ion batteries,
reductions and environmental protection (5/5). Volume relevance is
covering 15 % of total energy, are the best technologies, obtaining very
also high (4/5) since the main propulsion unit is given by the sails and
close scores. This technology obtains the highest score in terms of
the motor is an auxiliary system, therefore the engine room must have a
emissions, due to the total absence of CO2 and NOx. On the other hand,
limited volume. Weights (3/5) and costs (2/5) have a lower impact in
the main disadvantages are the high values of cost, mainly for the PU,
and volume, because the PEMFC needs a BAT pack which increases the
Table 4
system’s required space.
Sail Yacht characteristics & relevance.
Also ICE fuelled by LNG (with MDO as pilot) shows good results. LNG
Vessel Type Sail Yacht ECAs Navigation < 50 % is characterized by higher energy density in comparison with all
Frequency
hydrogen solutions, obtaining consequently higher score in terms of
Lbp 20 m Navigation Low volume. Due to the higher density of LNG, the low weight score, and the
Frequency
storage size, deriving from energy inputs, differences in weight score are
B 5.3 m Cost REL. 2/5
H 3m Vol. REL. 4/5 not appreciable with LH2 and CH2 solutions. Furthermore, LNG tech­
Max. Power 30 kW Wgt. REL. 3/5 nology has a low value of NOx and the costs are limited, therefore, good
Operational hours 10 h CO2 REL. 5/5 emission and cost scores are reached by this solution. Table 7 reports
BAT Energy (FC) 15 % NOx REL. 5/5 three best technologies absolute values.
Navigation Type Coastal Env. Haz. REL. 5/5
Through the HELM evaluation it is possible to affirm that PEMCs

8
M. Rivarolo et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460

Fig. 5. Sail Yacht scores in HELM.

fuelled by CH2 can be considered the best technology solution in a real

Table 5
on board installation scenario. This is because LH2, which is stored at
Sail Yacht: Volume, Weight, Cost and Emissions values of the four best solutions.
very low temperature, needs to be coupled with a boil off gas manage­
System ICE PEMFC PEMFC PEMFC ment system, capable of reliquefying evaporated hydrogen. This implies
MDO LH2 CH2 MH
an auxiliary system installation, too complicated in the management for
Storage volume [m3] 0.16 0.61 0.9 0.86 this kind of application. In light of this practical consideration, HELM
PU volume [m3] 0.39 0.3 0.3 0.3 confirms the choice carried out in the RH2IWER project to be imple­
BAT volume [m3] – 0.74 0.74 0.74
Fuel weight [kg] 77 20 15 15
mented on board.
Storage weight [kg] 51 249 174 2,691 To carry out sensitivity analysis, it is also possible to compare the
PU weight [kg] 194 172 172 172 different solutions in the same scenario, exploring a range of different
BAT weight [kg] – 450 450 450 peak powers and fuel storage duration, within variable ranges. For this
Storage Cost [k$] 3.04 17.1 6.71 637
kind of analysis, the power and autonomy ranges are an additional input
PU Cost [k$] 76.5 531 531 531
BAT Cost [k$] – 34.4 34.4 34.4 set by the user. For this application, as Fig. 7 shows, PEMFCs fuelled by
CO2 emissions [kg/ 247 – – – hydrogen are the best solution for limited autonomy range, typical of
mission] inland water navigation with daily refuelling, while ICE solutions are
NOx emissions* [kg/ 2.91 – – – more competitive in case of higher required autonomies (i.e. 3–4 days
mission]
without refuelling), due to high volumes required for H2 storage on­
* NOx emissions reported values consider SCR abatement. board. This result confirms that hydrogen vessels are a viable solution
only in case of limited routes and powers, typical of touristic and small
passenger boats.
Table 6
Passenger Ferry characteristics & relevance.
Vessel Type Pax Ferry ECAs Navigation < 50 % 3.3. Cruise ship
Frequency

Lbp 54.4 m Navigation Medium This case study considers a large cruise ship currently in operation
Frequency and belonging to the Italian company “Costa Crociere”. It has a length
B 10.8 m Cost REL. 1/5 between perpendicular of about 325 m, a beam equal to 42 m and it can
H 2.9 m Vol. REL. 3/5 accommodate more than 6,500 passengers. This ship is currently pow­
Max. Power 600 kW Wgt. REL. 2/5
Operational hours 6h CO2 REL. 5/5
ered by LNG through four DF ICEs capable of providing a maximum
BAT Energy (FC) 15 % NOx REL. 5/5 power of 15,440 kW each. To demonstrate the HELM different fields of
Navigation Type Inland Env. Haz. REL. 5/5 application, two scenarios are taken into account for this case study. The
first analysis is based on the maximum installed power in order to
evaluate the best solution capable of also guaranteeing redundancies,
while, for the second analysis, only hotel loads in a port stop scenario are
considered. In this case just one PU, working at a reduced load, is used.

9
M. Rivarolo et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460

Fig. 6. Passenger Ferry Score in HELM.

Table 7
Pax Ferry Volume, Weight, Cost and Emissions values of the three best solutions.
SYSTEM PEMFC PEMFC CH2 ICE MDO-LNG
LH2

Storage volume [m3] 5.69 10.7 6.53

PU volume [m3] 5.32 5.32 3.96
BAT volume [m3] 2.54 2.54 –
Fuel weight [tons] 0.24 0.18 0.79
Storage weight [tons] 2.53 1.85 4.13
PU weight [tons] 2.31 2.31 3.66
BAT weight [tons] 3.66 3.66 –
Storage Cost [k$] 184 73.1 27.9
PU Cost [k$] 3,204 3,204 959
BAT Cost [k$] 413 413 –
CO2 emissions [kg/mission] – – 2,145
NOx emissions [kg/mission] – – 6.55

The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the possibility to compare different

technology solutions capable of providing the required power, flanking
the conventional generators.
Fig. 7. Pax Ferry, technologies analysis 3D maps.

3.3.1. Max power & energy

In this case a maximum power equal to 61.76 MW, provided for 175
h, is considered. For FC technologies, 20 % of energy is assumed to be
provided by batteries. This ship operates mainly in national water areas
where emissions would have a moderate relevance; on the other hand,
cruise ships stop frequently in ports and near protected marine areas; for
this case study, the possibility of navigating inside ECA, where NOx
emission are strictly limited, is taken into account. Based on these
evaluations, NOx emissions, CO2 emissions and potential hazards in case
of outboard fuel spillage have been assumed as very important issues,
identifying the maximum value for NOx and environmental hazards
REL. As far as navigation frequency input is concerned, cruise ships
operate to produce profit (cost relevance set to 4/5), it is inconvenient to
keep them still for long periods; furthermore, also during harbour stops,
PU are active to provide hotel loads. In view of these considerations,
navigation frequency is set on a heavy duty scenario. It is worth noting
that, for this type of vessel, the need for space saving is more important
than weight constraint, therefore REL are set equal to 4/5 and 2/5,
respectively (Table 8).
FC technologies largely exceed the currently market available gen­
erators’ maximum power threshold, also considering the installation of
more commercial products in parallel. Furthermore, in case of
hydrogen-based solutions (PEMFC), the necessary volume would exceed

10
M. Rivarolo et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460

Table 8 (-162 ◦ C). This entails the employment of more costly, voluminous and
Cruise Ship propulsion analysis characteristics & relevance. heavy storage systems (e.g Type C tanks) which require an insulation
Vessel Type Cruise Ship ECAs Navigation > 50 % layer, but also particular design and materials. A great advantage of LNG
Frequency is related to NOx emissions which can be drastically reduced in com­
Lbp 325 m Navigation Heavy parison with MDO. However, LNG allows for lower emissions in terms of
Frequency both CO2 and NOx, thus DF ICE fuelled by LNG obtains a score com­
B 42 m Cost REL. 4/5 parable with the previous technology. Also DF ICE fuelled by MeOH
H 18 m Vol. REL. 4/5 obtains good scores. MeOH energy density is lower than both LNG and
Max. Power 61,760 kW Wgt. REL. 2/5
Operational hours 175 h CO2 REL. 4/5
MDO energy densities, thus a larger fuel amount is needed. On the other
BAT Energy (FC) 20 % NOx REL. 5/5 hand, MeOH does not require any particular storage system because it is
Navigation Type National Env. Haz. REL. 5/5 liquid at ambient conditions, like MDO. For these reasons, it obtains
volume, weight and cost scores comparable with LNG, in confirmation of
the interest nourished towards this fuel in the near future. If spilled
the available space onboard, due to the high fuel amount needed to
outboard, MeOH can be considered less dangerous for the environment
provide energy requirements. Thus, only ICEs technologies are analysed
in comparison with other fuels thanks to its high solubility in water
more in detail.
which allows to rapidly reduce concentrations under the LT50
Fig. 8 shows that the maximum score is obtained by ICE fuelled by
threshold. The last solution is represented by DF ICE fuelled by a
MDO. This is due to technical reasons, related mainly to the fuel and its
blending of NH3 and H2, directly extracted from ammonia through a
storage system. If the PU are comparable in terms of volume, weight and
cracking process. This requires the installation of a cracking reactor on
cost, storage systems and their dimensions have the highest impact on
board, increasing total weight, volume and cost. Ammonia energy
the total score. As shown in Fig. 8, MDO is characterized by high energy
density is comparable with methanol one, but it needs to be stored at
density, therefore a lower fuel amount is needed to provide the required
–33 ◦ C (at ambient pressure). Ammonia environmental hazards score is
energy in comparison with other solutions. Furthermore, since it is
negatively affected by its very high toxicity for humans and marine
liquid at ambient temperature and pressure, it can be stored in structural
species, mitigated by high solubility in water, which rapidly reduces
tanks. Thus, maximum scores on weight, volume and cost are achieved
concentrations, and its harmlessness for atmosphere (NH3 has zero
with this solution. On the other hand, it obtains low NOx and CO2
GWP). At present, this solution is less promising than the others for this
emission scores, due to the high pollutant amounts, and it is also very
application, however it is worth noting that it presents zero carbon
dangerous for marine species in case of outboard spillage. The best
emissions, leading to maximum score in terms of CO2 emissions.
alternative is represented by DF ICE fuelled by LNG, which is the solu­
Fig. 9 compares the absolute values of volumes, weights and costs for
tion installed on board this cruise ship. This condition is justified mainly
the three best solutions. From the volume standpoint, ICE-MDO is the
by the higher amount of LNG needed to satisfy the energy demand, the
best, as the other two technologies require a significant amount of space
necessity to consider a small pilot fuel amount, and the more complex
for storage system (nearly 80 % of the total for both LNG and MeOH),
storage system. Indeed, LNG is stored under cryogenic conditions
which leads to a total required space twice as high compared to MDO.

Fig. 8. Cruise ship, max power score graph.

11
M. Rivarolo et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460

Fig. 9. Comparison between MDO, MDO-MeOH and MDO-LNG technologies results.

The PU volume is similar, in case of MDO it is slightly higher due to the market for the required size, as HELM indicates. Differently to the pre­
exhaust gas treatment (i.e. scrubber) to comply with NOx limits. vious scenario, due to the emissions issue and to lower energy require­
ment, MDO (total score = 76) and MeOH (total score = 88) are not
3.3.2. Harbour mode analysis – Analysis on one engine power worthy solutions for this analysis. Although LNG obtains a lower score in
For this mission, maximum power is nearly 7 MW, provided for 10 h. comparison with H2 solutions, this solution represents best currently
To simulate this scenario some user inputs are modified compared to the available technology for large cruise ships, since, matching the
previous analysis. Navigation frequency is set on a medium duty sce­ maximum power and the hotel load scenarios, LNG is able to satisfy in a
nario because, considering only one generator capable to provide hotel good way the ship’s global energy requirements, considering both open
load during harbour stops, this one will not be used continuously sea navigation and permanence in harbour. Thus, also for this case
throughout overall cruise mission. Furthermore, to model port stay, study, the solution provided by HELM corresponds to the one installed
inland navigation in ECAs is considered, thus relevance for environ­ on board.
mental parameters is maximum. Cost relevance is set equal to 1, justified
by the moderate generator size needed to satisfy the energy demand. 3.4. Container ship
Other relevance parameters remain the same already set for maximum
power scenario. Input data are resumed in Table 9. Another large size case study is represented by a container ship
The output interface (Fig. 10) shows that PEMFC and SOFC exceed managed by DANAOS. Built in 2009, ZIM LUANDA has an overall length
the currently market available generators maximum power threshold, equal to 260.05 m, a beam of about 32.25 m and its container capacity is
however, differently to the previous analysis, they don’t exceed volume equal to 4,253 TEU. It is powered by MAN engine fuelled by MDO with a
threshold, due to the lower energy requirements. Although PEMFC power capacity of 37 MW. Furthermore, this ship represents a demo
fuelled by LH2 and CH2 obtain very high scores, demonstrating the vessel for the ENGIMMONIA European project, justifying a reduced
interest for such technologies in the near future to satisfy hotel load with relevance cost.
particular focus on pollutant emission. For this reason, in view of con­ Available fuel oil storage volume is sufficient to guarantee one
crete future application also PEMFC fuelled by LH2 and CH2 are month of autonomy working at the maximum power and considering
investigated in more detail. engines efficiency as 50 %. A one-week mission is analysed, corre­
As reported in Fig. 11, the best solution would be PEMFC fuelled by sponding to the Athens (Greece) – Barcelona (Spain) route, in Mediter­
LH2 and CH2. Hydrogen technologies obtain maximum emissions score ranean Sea. This kind of mission, typically carried out from large
and, due to the more stringent emissions requirements, they would be container vessels, implies permanence in deep sea condition, outside
very good for port stops only, overtaking the LNG solution. However, it ECAs, with minimum emissions relevance and moderate relevance on
must be outlined that, at present, these solutions are not available on the environmental hazard. Cargo transported by this type of vessel is clas­
sified as modular cargo for which volume is the most important
(maximum relevance), while weight is not critical (Table 10).
Table 9
As Fig. 12 shows, this case study is characterized by a high ICE - MDO
Cruise ship harbour analysis characteristics & relevance.
score which widely overcome other solutions. This is due to the very
Vessel Type Cruise Ship ECAs Navigation > 50 % high energy requirements together with important volume and cost
Frequency
relevance and not strict requirements about emissions. This scenario
Lbp 325 m Navigation Medium leads to a penalization of alternative fuels which present a lower energy
Frequency
density, and therefore larger fuel amount to provide the same energy
B 42 m Cost REL. 1/5
H 18 m Vol. REL. 4/5 value, not balanced by emissions benefits. As for the cruise ship case, FC
Max. Power 7,000 kW Wgt. REL. 2/5 technologies cannot be considered. From the results obtained consid­
Operational hours 10 h CO2 REL. 5/5 ering a reduced mission duration, if the total autonomy was taken into
BAT Energy (FC) 15 % NOx REL. 5/5 account, gap between ICE – MDO solution and alternative fuels would be
Navigation Type Inland Env. Haz. REL. 5/5
increased underlining the confirmation of MDO as best technology

12
M. Rivarolo et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460

Fig. 10. Cruise ship, harbour score tool capture.

Fig. 11. Cruise ship harbour score graph.

13
M. Rivarolo et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460

Table 10 and each technology solution, the different parameters have been
Container ship characteristics & relevance. evaluated and scores have been attributed to each solution considering
Vessel Type Container Ship ECAs Navigation < 50 % the constraints, the inputs and the single parameters. The tool provides
Frequency also results in absolute terms, giving important indications in terms of
Lbp 260.05 m Navigation Heavy expected weights, volumes, costs and emissions for all the investigated
Frequency technology combinations.
B 32.25 m Cost REL. 3/5 The main results for each case study can be summarised as follows:
H 19.30 m Vol. REL. 5/5
Max. Power 37,000 kW Wgt. REL. 2/5
Operational hours 168 h CO2 REL. 1/5
• Sail yacht: the highest score solution resulted in ICE-MDO solution.
BAT Energy (FC) 15 % NOx REL. 1/5 Despite the high relevance on the emissions due to the typical costal
Navigation Type Deep Env. Haz. REL. 3/5 navigation area, the ICE-MDO solution resulted the best thank the
high score on volume and weight that for such type of vessel is for
surely crucial.
solution for this type of vessels.
• Pax ferry for inland water navigation: considering the peculiarity of
the navigation route and the strict environmental regulations, the
4. Conclusions best score solution resulted in PEMFC + LH2 followed by PEMFC +
CH2.
The present paper reported an upgrade of the Helper for Energy • Cruise ship: in this case it is possible to identify two optimal solu­
Layouts in Maritime applications (HELM) software tool, already devel­ tions, depending on the scenario: considering the relatively long
oped by the authors and a validation of the tool by investigating four duration of the navigation, the fuel range and therefore the amount
different case studies. of volume required by the fuel storage is crucial. In this sense, for the
The HELM tool has been developed to compare traditional and navigation phase, the ICE + MDO resulted the best solution, followed
innovative systems for energy production and storage onboard maritime by the ICE + LNG. On the other hand, during the docking phase in the
vessels. It is based on a large and updated database of market solutions harbour, the environmental impact of the ship needs to be taken into
and a wide range of maps correlating costs, volumes, weights, emissions account. For this reason and in this case, the optimal solution would
and fuel environmental hazards with energy demand, applicative sce­ result in PEMFC system + H2 storage, followed by the ICE + LNG. As
nario and vessel’s typology. The algorithm adopts a multi-criteria conclusion, the optimal compromise solution is represented by the
method to carry out the analysis and compare the solutions for the ICE fuelled with LNG
different case studies. For each considered parameter (i.e. volume, • Container ship: this case is characterised by a very long navigation
weight, cost, emissions, etc) the tool attributes a score based on the route and therefore the fuel range together with the fuel storage
technology and the vessel considered and the final total score is the sum volume are the most critical parameters. While, the pollutant emis­
of all the items. The higher the final score, the better the solution. In this sions, especially in protected areas are of less relevance. For these
work, four different vessels (a small sail yacht; a small passenger ferry reasons, the traditional ICE + MDO solution still results by far the
for inland navigation; a large cruise ship and a large container ship) most suitable.
were evaluated. For each of them, a range of different solutions for the
onboard energy system were investigated (i.e. PEMFC with liquid, In all cases, the chosen solution corresponds to the real one installed
compressed or MH stored hydrogen, SOFC with LNG, ICE fuelled by on board or to a solution that is going to be installed. In particular, the
MDO, MEOH, LNG, NH3, or a combination of them). For each case study

Fig. 12. Container ship score graph.

14
M. Rivarolo et al.
ICE + fossil fuel results to be the best solution in most of the cases in real
applications, mostly for economic and technology maturity reasons. This
validates the tool results and confirms that the evaluation algorithm is
well structured, being able to replicate and confirm the real decision
process. The added value of the HELM tool is the possibility to simulate
and evaluate the optimal solution also in alternative scenarios in which
the economic impact leaves the place to other priority aspects, such as
the environmental one. A sensitivity analysis was also carried out to
compare the different solutions in terms of maximum required power
and operational hours. These two parameters are correlated to the sys­
tem efficiency and the available volume for fuel storage. The analysis
showed how the H2-based solutions can reach the highst score in case of
small ships (low power) and limited routes. Instead, for large ships and
long routes, the traditional solutions seem still to be the optimal ones
due to the strong constrains related to the required volume for the fuel
storage. This to the detriment of the environmental sustainability of this
solution.
It is worth noting that the multi-criteria analysis has a general
approach, allowing to give preliminary information on the best energy
system solution, also to comply with the application requirements (i.e.
pollutant emissions in ports and restricted areas). HELM can be used for
many design approaches, either for a new ship project or for already
existing ships retrofit; moreover, the database can be easily extended to
further energy generation and storage technologies.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
M. Rivarolo: Methodology, Supervision. S. Piccardo: Data curation,
Software, Writing – original draft. G.N. Montagna: Data curation,
Software, Writing – original draft. D. Bellotti: Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
ENGIMMONIA project has received funding from the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant
agreement N◦ 955413. Disclaimer excluding Agency responsibility. The
information and views set out in this website are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union.
Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person
acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be
made of the information contained therein. RH2IWER project is sup­
ported by the Clean Hydrogen Partnership and its members Hydrogen
Europe and Hydrogen Europe Research (grant agreement N.
101101358). Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions
expressed are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily
reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the
granting authority can be held responsible for them.
References
[1] International Energy Agency (IEA), “International Energy Agency (IEA) official
website.” https://www.iea.org/statistics/ (accessed Apr. 04, 2022).
[2] Det Norske Veritas (DNV), “MARITIME FORECAST TO 2050,” 2020.
[3] International Maritime Organization (IMO), “MARPOL ANNEX VI AND NTC 2008
Resolution Amends Date of entry into force,” 2020.
[4] International Maritime Organization (IMO), “RESOLUTION MEPC.317(74)
(adopted on 17 May 2019) AMENDMENTS TO THE TECHNICAL CODE ON
15
Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460
CONTROL OF EMISSION OF NITROGEN OXIDES FROM MARINE DIESEL ENGINES
(NOx TECHNICAL CODE 2008) (Electronic Record Books and Certification
requirements for SCR systems),” 2019.
[5] International Maritime Organization (IMO), “RESOLUTION MEPC.320(74) 2019
GUIDELINES FOR CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 0.50% SULPHUR
LIMIT UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.cim
ac.com/cms/upload/workinggroups/WG7/CIMAC_WG7_2015_01_Guideline_Cold.
[6] International Maritime Organization (IMO), “INITIAL IMO STRATEGY ON
REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS,” 2018. [Online]. Available:
http://www.imo.org.
[7] Ouyang T, Tan J, Xie S, Wu W, Su Z. A new scheme for large marine vessels LNG
cold energy utilization from thermodynamic and thermoeconomic viewpoints.
Energy Convers Manag Feb. 2021;229:113770. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENCONMAN.2020.113770.
[8] Armellini A, Daniotti S, Pinamonti P, Reini M. Evaluation of gas turbines as
alternative energy production systems for a large cruise ship to meet new maritime
regulations. Appl. Energy Feb. 2018;211:306–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
APENERGY.2017.11.057.
[9] Al-Enazi A, Bicer Y, Okonkwo EC, Al-Ansari T. Evaluating the utilisation of clean
fuels in maritime applications: A techno-economic supply chain optimization. Fuel
Aug. 2022;322:124195. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUEL.2022.124195.
[10] DNV GL, “Assessment of selected alternative fuels and technologies maritime
Assessment of selected alternative fuels and technologies DNV GL-Maritime 1,”
2018.
[11] M. Mikulski, “Public final report-Methanol as an alternative fuel for vessels,” 2018.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322854738_Public_final_report-
Methanol_as_an_alternative_fuel_for_vessels (accessed Jun. 13, 2023).
[12] Balcombe P, et al. How to decarbonise international shipping: Options for fuels,
technologies and policies. Energy Convers Manag Feb. 2019;182:72–88. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2018.12.080.
[13] Li J, Zhang R, Pan J, Wei H, Shu G, Chen L. Ammonia and hydrogen blending
effects on combustion stabilities in optical SI engines. Energy Convers Manag Mar.
2023;280:116827. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2023.116827.
[14] Bellotti D, Rivarolo M, Magistri L. A comparative techno-economic and sensitivity
analysis of Power-to-X processes from different energy sources. Energy Convers
Manag May 2022;260:115565. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENCONMAN.2022.115565.
[15] Watanabe MDB, Hu X, Ballal V, Cavalett O, Cherubini F. Climate change mitigation
potentials of on grid-connected Power-to-X fuels and advanced biofuels for the
European maritime transport. Energy Conversion and Management: X Oct. 2023;
20:100418. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECMX.2023.100418.
[16] Ampah JD, Yusuf AA, Afrane S, Jin C, Liu H. Reviewing two decades of cleaner
alternative marine fuels: Towards IMO’s decarbonization of the maritime transport
sector. J. Clean. Prod. Oct. 2021;320:128871. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2021.128871.
[17] Zis TPV, Psaraftis HN, Tillig F, Ringsberg JW. Decarbonizing maritime transport: A
Ro-Pax case study. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. Dec. 2020;37:100565. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.RTBM.2020.100565.
[18] Vakili S, Schönborn A, Ölçer AI. The road to zero emission shipbuilding Industry: A
systematic and transdisciplinary approach to modern multi-energy shipyards.
Energy Conversion and Management: X Apr. 2023;18:100365. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ECMX.2023.100365.
[19] Abu Bakar NN, Bazmohammadi N, Vasquez JC, Guerrero JM. Electrification of
onshore power systems in maritime transportation towards decarbonization of
ports: A review of the cold ironing technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. May
2023;178:113243. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2023.113243.
[20] Ng MW, Talley WK. Decarbonizing the maritime industry with analytics. Transp
Res D Transp Environ Apr. 2021;93:102755. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
TRD.2021.102755.
[21] Karaçay ÖE, Özsoysal OA. Techno-economic investigation of alternative propulsion
systems for tugboats. Energy Conversion and Management: X Dec. 2021;12:
100140. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECMX.2021.100140.
[22] Helgason R, Cook D, Davíðsdóttir B. An evaluation of the cost-competitiveness of
maritime fuels – a comparison of heavy fuel oil and methanol (renewable and
natural gas) in Iceland. Sustain Prod Consum Jul. 2020;23:236–48. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.SPC.2020.06.007.
[23] Priftis A, Boulougouris E, Turan O, Papanikolaou A. Parametric design and multi-
objective optimisation of containerships. Ocean Eng. May 2018;156:347–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCEANENG.2018.02.062.
[24] Pesce M, et al. Selecting sustainable alternatives for cruise ships in Venice using
multi-criteria decision analysis. Sci. Total Environ. Nov. 2018;642:668–78. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.05.372.
[25] Aspen DM, Sparrevik M. Evaluating alternative energy carriers in ferry
transportation using a stochastic multi-criteria decision analysis approach. Transp
Res D Transp Environ Sep. 2020;86:102383. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
TRD.2020.102383.
[26] Iannaccone T, Landucci G, Tugnoli A, Salzano E, Cozzani V. Sustainability of cruise
ship fuel systems: Comparison among LNG and diesel technologies. J. Clean. Prod.
Jul. 2020;260:121069. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.121069.
[27] Zanobetti F, Pio G, Jafarzadeh S, Muñoz Ortiz M, Cozzani V. Decarbonization of
maritime transport: Sustainability assessment of alternative power systems.
J. Clean. Prod. Sep. 2023;417:137989. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2023.137989.
[28] Chauvy R, Lepore R, Fortemps P, De Weireld G. Comparison of multi-criteria
decision-analysis methods for selecting carbon dioxide utilization products. Sustain
Prod Consum Oct. 2020;24:194–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SPC.2020.07.002.
M. Rivarolo et al.
[29] Baumann M, Weil M, Peters JF, Chibeles-Martins N, Moniz AB. A review of multi-
criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy storage systems for grid
applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Jun. 2019;107:516–34. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.RSER.2019.02.016.
[30] Daniel H, Antunes CH, Trovão JPF, Williams D. Shore operations enhancement of
bulk carriers based on a multi-objective sizing approach. Energy Convers Manag
Jan. 2023;276:116497. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2022.116497.
[31] Rivarolo M, Rattazzi D, Magistri L, Massardo AF. Multi-criteria comparison of
power generation and fuel storage solutions for maritime application. Energy
Convers Manag Sep. 2021;244:114506. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENCONMAN.2021.114506.
[32] “Impact Assessment - ecoinvent.” https://ecoinvent.org/the-ecoinvent-dat
abase/impact-assessment/#:~:text=Footprints%20and%20impact%20categories
%20can,for%20example%20kg%20CO2%2Dequivalents. (accessed Aug. 21,
2023).
[33] “CCOHS: What is a LD50 and LC50?” https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/
chemicals/ld50.html (accessed Aug. 21, 2023).
[34] Kanchiralla FM, Brynolf S, Malmgren E, Hansson J, Grahn M. Life-Cycle
Assessment and Costing of Fuels and Propulsion Systems in Future Fossil-Free
Shipping. Environ. Sci. Tech. Sep. 2022;56(17):12517–31. https://doi.org/
10.1021/ACS.EST.2C03016/SUPPL_FILE/ES2C03016_SI_001.PDF.
[35] Di Micco S, Mastropasqua L, Cigolotti V, Minutillo M, Brouwer J. A framework for
the replacement analysis of a hydrogen-based polymer electrolyte membrane fuel
cell technology on board ships: A step towards decarbonization in the maritime
sector. Energy Convers Manag Sep. 2022;267:115893. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENCONMAN.2022.115893.
[36] A. Dotto and F. Satta, “Techno-economic optimization of hybrid-electric power
plants onboard cruise ships,” Energy Conversion and Management: X, p. 100436,
Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.ECMX.2023.100436.
[37] Power Cell Group, “Marine System 200.” https://powercellgroup.com/segment
s/marine/ (accessed Jun. 09, 2023).
[38] Ballard, “FC Wave Marine Module.” https://www.ballard.com/fuel-cell-solutions/
fuel-cell-power-products/marine-modules (accessed Jun. 09, 2023).
[39] Gadducci E, Lamberti T, Bellotti D, Magistri L, Massardo AF. BoP incidence on a
240 kW PEMFC system in a ship-like environment, employing a dedicated fuel cell
stack model. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy Jul. 2021;46(47):24305–17. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2021.04.192.
[40] Elkafas AG, Rivarolo M, Gadducci E, Magistri L, Massardo AF. “Fuel Cell Systems
for Maritime: A Review of Research Development. Commercial Products,
Applications, and Perspectives” 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11010097.
[41] Accessed: Jun 2017;09:2023 [Online]. Available: https://www.emsa.europa.eu/p
ublications/item/2921-emsa-study-on-the-use-of-fuel-cells-in-shipping.html.
[42] Pei P, Chen H. Main factors affecting the lifetime of Proton Exchange Membrane
fuel cells in vehicle applications: A review. Appl. Energy Jul. 2014;125:60–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2014.03.048.
[43] Sheng C, et al. Energy management strategy based on health state for a PEMFC/
Lithium-ion batteries hybrid power system. Energy Convers Manag Nov. 2022;271:
116330. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2022.116330.
[44] Sapra H, et al. Integration of solid oxide fuel cell and internal combustion engine
for maritime applications. Appl. Energy Jan. 2021;281:115854. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.APENERGY.2020.115854.
[45] Giugno A, Mantelli L, Cuneo A, Traverso A. Performance analysis of a fuel cell
hybrid system subject to technological uncertainties. Appl. Energy Dec. 2020;279:
115785. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2020.115785.
[46] Mantelli L, Ferrari ML, Traverso A. Dynamics and control of a turbocharged solid
oxide fuel cell system. Appl. Therm. Eng. Jun. 2021;191:116862. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2021.116862.
[47] Feng Y, et al. Progress and prospect of the novel integrated SOFC-ICE hybrid power
system: System design, mass and heat integration, system optimization and techno-
economic analysis. Energy Conversion and Management: X Apr. 2023;18:100350.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECMX.2023.100350.
[48] Milcarek RJ, DeBiase VP, Ahn J. Investigation of startup, performance and cycling
of a residential furnace integrated with micro-tubular flame-assisted fuel cells for
micro-combined heat and power. Energy Apr. 2020;196:117148. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENERGY.2020.117148.
[49] Bloom Energy, “Bloom Energy Server - Bloom Energy,” 2022. https://www.
bloomenergy.com/resource/bloom-energy-server/ (accessed Jun. 13, 2023).
[50] Convion, “Convion C60,” 2015. https://convion.fi/products/ (accessed Jun. 13,
2023).
[51] Cummins, “Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Technology | Accelera,” 2022. https://www.acc
elerazero.com/fuel-cells/sofc (accessed Jun. 16, 2023).
16
Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100460
[52] “Manufacturing Cost and Installed Price Analysis of Stationary Fuel Cell Systems -
DocsLib,” 2015. https://docslib.org/doc/7077863/manufacturing-cost-and-install
ed-price-analysis-of-stationary-fuel-cell-systems (accessed Jun. 13, 2023).
[53] Wärtsilä, “Marine diesel engines - Wärtsilä.” https://www.wartsila.com/marine/pr
oducts/engines-and-generating-sets/diesel-engines (accessed Jun. 16, 2023).
[54] MAN, “Marine Engine Programme.” https://www.man-es.com/marine/products/
planning-tools-and-downloads/marine-engine-programme (accessed Jun. 13,
2023).
[55] YANMAR, “Engines - YANMAR Marine International.” https://www.yanmar.com/
marine/engines/ (accessed Jun. 13, 2023).
[56] H. O. Kristenen, H. Marineconsult, A. Hans, and O. Kristensen, “Energy demand
and exhaust gas emissions of marine engines,” 2015.
[57] “Nava Charter Croatia - Navaboats.” https://navaboats.com/ (accessed Jun. 13,
2023).
[58] “WinGD - Winterthur Gas & Diesel.” https://www.wingd.com/en/ (accessed Jun.
13, 2023).
[59] SEA-LNG, “LNG as a marine fuel-the investment opportunity sea\lng study-
newbuild pure car and truck carrier (PCTC) on pacific and atlantic trade lanes.”.
[60] “The world́ s first methanol ferry – StenaLine.com.” https://stenaline.com/media/
stories/the-worlds-first-methanol-ferry/ (accessed Jun. 13, 2023).
[61] MAN B&W LGIM Engine, “The Methanol-fuelled MAN B&W LGIM Engine
Application, service experience and latest development of the ME-LGIM engine
MAN Energy Solutions The methanol-fuelled MAN B&W LGIM engine 2 Future in
the making 3,” 2021.
[62] C. Cheng, R. Faurskov Cordtz, T. Berg Thomsen, N. Langballe Førby, and J.
Schramm, “Application of methanol with an ignition improver in a small marine CI
engine,” Energy Convers Manag, vol. 271, p. 116311, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.
ENCONMAN.2022.116311.
[63] Frigo S, Gentili R. Analysis of the behaviour of a 4-stroke Si engine fuelled with
ammonia and hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy Feb. 2013;38(3):1607–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2012.10.114.
[64] Comotti M, Frigo S. Hydrogen generation system for ammonia–hydrogen fuelled
internal combustion engines. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy Sep. 2015;40(33):10673–86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2015.06.080.
[65] Perna A, Jannelli E, Di Micco S, Romano F, Minutillo M. Designing, sizing and
economic feasibility of a green hydrogen supply chain for maritime transportation.
Energy Convers Manag Feb. 2023;278:116702. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENCONMAN.2023.116702.
[66] Bellosta von Colbe J, et al. Application of hydrides in hydrogen storage and
compression: Achievements, outlook and perspectives. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
Mar. 2019;44(15):7780–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2019.01.104.
[67] Cavo M, Gadducci E, Rattazzi D, Rivarolo M, Magistri L. Dynamic analysis of PEM
fuel cells and metal hydrides on a zero-emission ship: A model-based approach. Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy Sep. 2021;46(64):32630–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2021.07.104.
[68] Morales-Ospino R, Celzard A, Fierro V. Strategies to recover and minimize boil-off
losses during liquid hydrogen storage. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Aug. 2023;182:
113360. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2023.113360.
[69] Det Norske Veritas (DNV), “Comparison of Alternative Marine Fuels SEA\LNG
Ltd,” 2019, [Online]. Available: www.dnvgl.com.
[70] Chart industries, “Powering the Future Through LNG,” 2022.
[71] International Maritime Organization, “RESOLUTION MSC.391(95) (adopted on 11
June 2015) ADOPTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF SAFETY FOR SHIPS
USING GASES OR OTHER LOW-FLASHPOINT FUELS (IGF CODE),” 2016.
[72] MAN B&W engines, “Engineering the future two-stroke green-ammonia engine
Fuelling the future by natural power MAN B&W engines powered by zero-carbon
fuels Future in the making,” 2019.
[73] “Corvus Dolphin Energy - Corvus Energy.” https://corvusenergy.com/products/
energy-storage-solutions/corvus-dolphin-energy/ (accessed Aug. 24, 2023).
[74] “Data sheet-AKASOL-AKASystem-15OEM50PRC-WEB.pdf | Enhanced Reader.”.
[75] Bouakkaz A, Mena AJG, Haddad S, Ferrari ML. Efficient energy scheduling
considering cost reduction and energy saving in hybrid energy system with energy
storage. J Energy Storage Jan. 2021;33:101887. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
EST.2020.101887.
[76] Korkmaz SA, Erginer KE, Yuksel O, Konur O, Colpan CO. Environmental and
economic analyses of fuel cell and battery-based hybrid systems utilized as
auxiliary power units on a chemical tanker vessel. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy Jul.
2023;48(60):23279–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2023.01.320.
[77] Vismara, “V68 PELOTARI PROJECT - Luxury Boat | Vismara Marine,” 2019.
https://www.vismara-mc.com/yacht/v68 (accessed Jun. 13, 2023).
[78] https://rh2iwer.eu/ last access 28/9/2023.