4.7 Article

Operational profiles of ships in Norwegian waters: An activity-based approach to assess the benefits of hybrid and electric propulsion

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2018.09.021

关键词

Electric propulsion; Hybrid propulsion; Ship operational profiles; Energy efficiency; Emissions; Automatic identification system

资金

  1. NTNU

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Various regulations are imposed on shipping to increase energy efficiency and reduce environmental impacts. Alternative fuels and power systems are among the solutions for compliance with these regulations. The power system of a ship may not operate optimally because of the diversity of the operational profile during its lifetime. This article uses an activity-based approach and big data from the Automatic Identification System (AIS) to study the operational profiles of eight ship types operating in Norwegian waters around mainland Norway in 2016. The aim is to identify ship types that can benefit from electric and hybrid propulsion through analysis of their operational profiles. Close to shore, the operational profiles of various ship types are similar, and all ships spend a great proportion of their time with lower loads. As the distance from shore increases, the operational profiles of various ship types follow distinct trends. Among the considered ship types, reefers spend more operational time close to the diesel engine design condition. On the other hand, offshore and passenger ships show the most dynamic operational profiles and spend a large percentage of their operational time with a partial load, away from diesel engine design conditions. Such ships can benefit from hybridisation, diesel-electric propulsion, and other electric concepts, such as batteries and fuel cells. Another option is to downsize diesel engines for better operation while fuel cells and batteries supply peak and partial loads. Operational profiles are plotted and details of the approach are presented in the article.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据