Methane slip and other emissions from newbuild LNG engine under real-world operation of a state-of-the art cruise ship

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) use as shipping fuel has increased in recent years. While LNG results in lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as well as benefits in terms of air pollutants, the slip of unburned methane, the main component of LNG, has remained a concern. In this study, methane together with other climate warming agents, CO2 and black carbon (BC), as well as other emission compounds were characterized from 4-stroke low-pressure dual fuel engine on-board a newly build cruise ship utilizing LNG as well as marine gas oil (MGO). The brake specific methane slip was found to vary according to engine load, being 2.3–3.0 g/kWh at 54–80% loads, but increasing to 10 g/kWh at 25% load and 21 g/kWh at 12% load. The LNG combustion also resulted in higher formaldehyde emissions compared to MGO, but reduction in formaldehyde levels was observed over the SCR catalyst present in the exhaust line of the dual-fuel engine, without urea injection, suggesting it may provide a pathway for formaldehyde mitigation. In terms of particle emissions, LNG use reduced particle mass (PM) by 87–93% and BC by 94–99% compared to MGO combustion. Non-volatile particle number above 23 nm (PNnv,>23nm) and 10 nm (PNnv,>10nm) were reduced by 88–97% and 97–99%, except at lowest engine load where PNnv,>10nm increased by 26% compared to MGO utilization. When total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions including CO2 and BC were considered, LNG use resulted in 13–15% lower GHG at high loads, but the benefit was undermined by the escaping methane at low load conditions. Following the engine activity profile during 8-months of vessel operation on the Mediterranean suggested, however, that in a diesel-electric cruise ship, low load conditions are used mainly during arrivals and departures from harbors, as the engine was operated at loads above 40% for 90% of the operation time. Weighted emission factor, representing the actual engine operation, resulted in methane slip of 2.8 g/kWh or 1.7% of the fuel use, which is below the value considered in the FuelEU Maritime. The results suggest that load specific methane slip, together with engine load profile should be considered when evaluating methane slip on vessel or fleet level.