Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LNG Small Scale and Transportation: Navigating the Risk
Alfonso Ibarreta, Ph.D., P.E., CFEI, Harri K. Kytömaa, Ph.D., P.E., Delmar R. “Trey” Morrison, III, Ph.D., P.E., CFEI, Originally published as Ibarreta AF, Morrison DR, Kytömaa HK. Small scale and transportation: Navigating the risk. LNG Industry Magazine 2014 Oct; 17–24. Introduction The recent natural gas boom in the United States has led to predictions of rapid growth in natural gas use for transportation, and a steep decrease in price compared to other fuel sources. At present, however, only about 0.1% of the U.S. natural gas supply (including LNG) is used as transportation fuel. For the reasons presented herein, that fraction is expected to increase substantially in the coming years. The most important LNG drivers are the economics of natural gas and its environmental benefits. Economic benefits inherently drive new technology initiatives, while the environmental benefits tend to require the force of regulations to be realized. Three high-horsepower transportation sectors are growing into the LNG business: trucking, marine, and rail:
• Trucking: LNG vehicles are optimal for either (a) high-mileage or (b) centrally fueled fleets that operate within a limited area. LNG vehicles require larger fuel tanks, because 1 gallon of LNG provides only 60% of the energy generated by one gallon of diesel.1 LNG vehicle use is largely focused on two categories: transit buses and heavy-duty Class 8 trucks (which currently account for 75% of commercial truck on-road diesel fuel consumption in the U.S.).2
• Marine: At the close of 2013, the world LNG tanker fleet consisted of 357 carriers, with a total capacity of 54 million cubic meters.3 This number of vessels, however, is miniscule compared to the worldwide merchant fleet, which is estimated to include more than 79,000 vessels, including cargo ships, container ships, cruise ships, tugs, and others.4 Most of these vessels rely on diesel or fuel oil for propulsion. Imagine the increase in infrastructure that would be necessary if only a small percentage of these vessels used natural gas.
1 Alternative fuels data center — fuel properties comparison chart
(http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf) 2 Tiax report, “U.S. and Canadian natural gas vehicle market analysis: Liquefied natural gas infrastructure” (2012) 3 IGU World LNG Report — 2014 Edition, pg. 28. 4 The world merchant fleet in 2011, Statistics from Equasis, pg. 6.
• Rail: The use of LNG as a locomotive fuel is currently in its infancy. Both American and Canadian companies are investigating LNG as a tender fuel for locomotives, and shipping LNG by rail. Rail shipping of LNG as a commodity is still far from becoming a reality, and there is no clear answer as to whether shipping LNG by rail or the use of LNG tenders will be accepted by the regulators.
Fuel Station Network The success of LNG as a transportation fuel depends on the availability of fueling stations and the robustness of the underlying LNG supply infrastructure. For example, fueling marine vessels, known as bunkering, will require a large investment in LNG handling facilities at ports, training for personnel, and a supply of LNG to the bunkering locations. LNG as a transportation fuel is limited by the available range of LNG vehicles and fueling stations. There are currently only 107 LNG truck fueling stations in the U.S., with 68 additional stations planned to be built in the next year.5 This number is small compared to the more than 1,500 CNG fueling stations currently in the U.S. Summary of the LNG Transportation Risk Picture Growth in LNG as a transportation fuel will require drastic infrastructure growth for its production, storage, and distribution via tanker truck, locomotive, and maritime shipping. This means that the quantity of LNG in transit, and the frequency of bulk LNG shipments, will increase dramatically, thereby increasing the level of risk associated with this fuel source. By far the biggest hurdles facing use of LNG for transportation are: (a) the public risk perception, (b) regulatory hurdles, and (c) business risk aversion. The historical transportation record has been relatively free of incidents, and when incidents have occurred, consequences have been minor. The public perception of LNG, however, is that it poses an elevated risk for surrounding communities.6 Current U.S. safety regulations related to the LNG infrastructure and transportation requirements are outdated, and need to be revised in preparation for the expected growth of LNG usage in the U.S. In addition, LNG infrastructure requires a large up-front capital investment and long-term commitment, which often hinges on the approval of federal or local regulators and a sufficient demand from users. Companies and stakeholders must therefore work together with regulators to develop sensible regulations that will keep up with advances in LNG technology, provide well-defined requirements, and ensure the safety of the public.
5 Data from the Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center (AFDC) database.
(http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/stations_counts.html) 6 E. Meyer, G. Andreassen, S. Shaw, and C. Wei. 2006. What risk should the public accept from LNG facilities?
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX.
Figure 1. LNG-fueled vehicles on U.S. roads in 1995–2010
Figure 2. Refueling an LNG-powered truck. (Image courtesy of UPS)
0
1
2
3
4
Thou
sand
Veh
icle
s
LNG Fueled Vehicles in Use
www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/data/
Figure 3. Locations of existing (red dots) and planned (gray dots) LNG truck fueling stations in the U.S.7
Figure 4. LNG bunkering from the Seagas to the Viking Grace ferry at the Port of Stockholm. The two LNG tanks are visible at the back of the ship. (Image courtesy of Viking Line ABP)
7 Data from DOE Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center (AFDC) station locator visualized using
Google Earth. Data from 2014.
Figure 5. LNG is being pilot tested as a cleaner fuel for future locomotives (Image courtesy of CN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Contribution Authors
Alfonso F. Ibarreta, Ph.D., P.E., CFEI Managing Engineer (508) 652-8551 [email protected] Bio
Dr. Ibarreta applies thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and heat transfer principles to the study of combustion processes in fires, explosions, and a variety of combustion devices. He is a Certified Fire and Explosion Investigator and has investigated fires and explosions involving consumer products, residential and commercial buildings, and industrial facilities.
Harri K. Kytömaa, Ph.D., P.E., CFEI Corporate Vice President & Practice Director (508) 652-8519 [email protected]
Bio
Dr. Kytömaa specializes in mechanical engineering and the analysis of thermal and flow processes. Dr. Kytömaa applies his expertise to the investigation and prevention of failures in
mechanical systems, including CO formation in combustion equipment and its migration. He also investigates fires and explosions, and the determination of their cause and origin. Dr. Kytömaa investigates such failures in aircraft, motor vehicles, marine facilities, processing and manufacturing plants, and office and residential occupancies.
Delmar R. "Trey" Morrison, III, Ph.D., P.E., CFEI Principal Engineer (630) 658-7508 [email protected]
Bio
Dr. Morrison’s practice areas encompass product safety, product liability, and chemical process safety. He specializes in investigations of origin, cause, and engineering issues related to hazardous chemicals incidents, fires, explosions, and chemical technology. Dr. Morrison’s expertise includes chemical engineering, fire dynamics, and the system safety of products and processes
