# Why do most ships use HFO fuel?



## CodyW

Hi Everyone,

I thought I'd come down to the engine room to ask a question that has me quite intrigued. How come they use such a heavy diesel and not just normal ute / truck diesel or even petrol to power these types of engines? 

Cody


----------



## Hugh Ferguson

Because it's cheaper and if heated and centrifuged is even said to produce more power. I knew it to have been done in the twin screw Glens c. 1950


----------



## surfaceblow

Heavy Fuel Oil has more BTU's per Unit than the lighter fuels and is cheaper. I was on a converted RO/RO that the US Navy used MDO on the engine had to be derated from 85,000 HP using HFO to 63,000 HP using MDO. Reducing the max speed from 32 knots to 24 knots. 

Joe


----------



## Dickyboy

I understood that HFO was the resedue that was left after the Products had been refined out of it. Wasn't much good for anything else.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

In a word - price - that's it - there is absolutely nothing else going for it.

Here is a wee bit of info

http://www.chevronmarineproducts.com/docs/EverythingAboutFuels_v0108_LO.PDF


----------



## oldseamerchant

Satanic Mechanic said:


> In a word - price - that's it - *there is absolutely nothing else going for it.*
> 
> Here is a wee bit of info
> 
> http://www.chevronmarineproducts.com/docs/EverythingAboutFuels_v0108_LO.PDF


Very true when you consider the maintenance costs being supported in the Super Slow Steaming regime now being operated by many.


----------



## A.D.FROST

Singapore reduce Harbour dues to ships that burn low sulphur fuels in port.


----------



## Derek Roger

A.D.FROST said:


> Singapore reduce Harbour dues to ships that burn low sulphur fuels in port.


Which a lot of ships do ; change over to diesel on entering port and generators are almost all on diesel . Exception may be the donkey boiler which is often still on heavy fuel .


----------



## A.D.FROST

Derek Roger said:


> Which a lot of ships do ; change over to diesel on entering port and generators are almost all on diesel . Exception may be the donkey boiler which is often still on heavy fuel .


Since when
http://gcaptain.com/compulsory-fuel-switching-hong/


----------



## Hugh Ferguson

There is a floating bunkering service for big ships off Falmouth-they bunker sufficient diesel to see them through North European waters.


----------



## chadburn

There have been a few report's in the Marine Press indicating that Low Sulpher could be the cause of some M.E.(s) stoppage's.


----------



## Derek Roger

TK Tankers newdesign One Spirit promises a 30 % improvement on fuel consumption over conventional design . A combination of going back to more sleek hulls ; improved power plant ; high efficiency low rev propellers and getting rid of the bulbous bow which apparently is a hinderance rather than an asset for their new hull design . I do not know what the generators boilers burn for fuel in port but with a 30% overall fuel saving I suspect HO . Will see if I can find out .
Derek


----------



## Hamish Mackintosh

A.D.FROST said:


> Singapore reduce Harbour dues to ships that burn low sulphur fuels in port.


I wonder if some of the "older" gen sets are equipped to burn low sulpher fuel, or do they use addatives to replenish the lube qualities of the sulpher, I suppose it does not matter realy, as it is only wear issue anyway


----------



## oldseamerchant

I see the American Shipping Co, TOTE, have just ordered two state-of-the-art 3100 TEU Box Boats. MAN Diesel 8L70ME-GI Dual Fuel. Powered primarily by LNG.


----------



## Wallace Slough

The State of California has clean air regulations which require ships to burn low sulpher fuel within certain distances of the coastline which has lead to a number of engine stoppages. Initially, low sulpher fuel was only required for the generators, but it was later required in the main engine also. While there were a number of near misses in San Francisco as a result of these regulations, there were no actual accidents locally to my knowledge.


----------



## Basil

A.D.FROST said:


> Since when
> http://gcaptain.com/compulsory-fuel-switching-hong/


Bit of a joke for HK. When the wind is coming from the industrial Pearl River there is probably more pollution in a day than all the ships produce in a long time.


----------



## chadburn

Wallace Slough said:


> The State of California has clean air regulations which require ships to burn low sulpher fuel within certain distances of the coastline which has lead to a number of engine stoppages. Initially, low sulpher fuel was only required for the generators, but it was later required in the main engine also. While there were a number of near misses in San Francisco as a result of these regulations, there were no actual accidents locally to my knowledge.


Sods Law that a stoppage will take place when you are in a tight spot.(Sad) not when you are well away from land.


----------



## Varley

Latest MER has a leader on stoppage topic.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Ah the pleasures of emission legislation and fuels.

It goes a little bit like this.......

If we take the two main sources of pollution that are legislated against there are Sulphur Oxides (SOX) and Nitrous Oxides (NOX).

SOX is entirely a fuel quality issue - the more Sulphur the more SOX. As it stands there areas where Low Sulphur FUEL OIL is used while steaming and alongside and there are now areas where Ultra Low sulphur is required along side - on all fuel burning plant - this basically means gas oil is the only option of liquid fuels.

Thats when the lunacy started to set in!!!! There was a considerable confusion between viscosity and Lubricity which resulted in all sorts of coolers, chillers and new systems fuel systems. It probably is not a surprise that Alfa Laval as a large supplier of coolers were loving this. I have not read the MER article and I may be wrong but does it say Sulphur has nothing to do with lubricity? See the thing is there was already an industry that had vast experience with ultra low sulphur fuels - the automotive industry, and they discovered a long time ago that the problem was not the lack of sulphur but the washing process which also removed other components notably Polar Oxygen and Nitrogen Compounds which had everything to do lubricity, they got round it by replacing them - easy really. I entirely agree with this but there is a considerable amount arguement. Ian Huckin if your about - your big on your Tribology - any thoughts?

NOX requires active scrubbing of the exhaust or intervention with the combustion process - so that will either be Selective Catalysts or Exhaust Gas recycling - go to the MAN site - there is plenty on it there.

LNG as a fuel get round the IMO tier 2 legislation but it will still require extra for the Tier 3 NOX emissions. It is however, again IMHO, the fuel of the future for vessels and the MAN MEGI engine is for this purpose.

Derek - the ONE SPIRIT project will probably go ahead but there is a huge question mark over the the datum they are using for the 30% saving claim. But if you should want to see something much more spectacular and interesting - take a look at the new LNG tankers TK have just ordered from DSME - industry changers!!!!


----------



## Tony Morris

Wallace Slough said:


> The State of California has clean air regulations which require ships to burn low sulpher fuel within certain distances of the coastline which has lead to a number of engine stoppages. Initially, low sulpher fuel was only required for the generators, but it was later required in the main engine also. While there were a number of near misses in San Francisco as a result of these regulations, there were no actual accidents locally to my knowledge.


On my last ship we called into L.A & San Francisco on each voyage & due to the various regs had to change over fuel 6 times (High sulpher HO - low sulpher HO - MGO - low sulpher HO - MGO - low sulpher HO - high sulpher HO, every call) on M/E, gennys & boiler, a complete pain in the a***. I can understand why there would be some problems with break downs due to all the cooling down & heating up of the components in such a short time.


----------



## engineer64

We used Diesel oil for maneuvering in the Sultzer engines of Mobil ships. Heavy oil is much cheaper & therefore used on voyage.


----------



## Hamish Mackintosh

Funny thing about LNG,nobody ever mentions the energy expended or the cost to get it to that state, and I notice they use diesel driven compressors, why not LNG driven compressors


----------



## A.D.FROST

I was on a SD14 which had no NRV on the inlet side of riser pipe,since the HO Tk level was higher than the DO Tk after c/o it would equalize out in DO Tk.(in the days when no one was bothered what came out the funnel)


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Hamish Mackintosh said:


> Funny thing about LNG,nobody ever mentions the energy expended or the cost to get it to that state, and I notice they use diesel driven compressors, why not LNG driven compressors


What plants that????


----------



## Derek Roger

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Ah the pleasures of emission legislation and fuels.
> 
> It goes a little bit like this.......
> 
> If we take the two main sources of pollution that are legislated against there are Sulphur Oxides (SOX) and Nitrous Oxides (NOX).
> 
> SOX is entirely a fuel quality issue - the more Sulphur the more SOX. As it stands there areas where Low Sulphur FUEL OIL is used while steaming and alongside and there are now areas where Ultra Low sulphur is required along side - on all fuel burning plant - this basically means gas oil is the only option of liquid fuels.
> 
> Thats when the lunacy started to set in!!!! There was a considerable confusion between viscosity and Lubricity which resulted in all sorts of coolers, chillers and new systems fuel systems. It probably is not a surprise that Alfa Laval as a large supplier of coolers were loving this. I have not read the MER article and I may be wrong but does it say Sulphur has nothing to do with lubricity? See the thing is there was already an industry that had vast experience with ultra low sulphur fuels - the automotive industry, and they discovered a long time ago that the problem was not the lack of sulphur but the washing process which also removed other components notably Polar Oxygen and Nitrogen Compounds which had everything to do lubricity, they got round it by replacing them - easy really. I entirely agree with this but there is a considerable amount arguement. Ian Huckin if your about - your big on your Tribology - any thoughts?
> 
> NOX requires active scrubbing of the exhaust or intervention with the combustion process - so that will either be Selective Catalysts or Exhaust Gas recycling - go to the MAN site - there is plenty on it there.
> 
> LNG as a fuel get round the IMO tier 2 legislation but it will still require extra for the Tier 3 NOX emissions. It is however, again IMHO, the fuel of the future for vessels and the MAN MEGI engine is for this purpose.
> 
> Derek - the ONE SPIRIT project will probably go ahead but there is a huge question mark over the the datum they are using for the 30% saving claim. But if you should want to see something much more spectacular and interesting - take a look at the new LNG tankers TK have just ordered from DSME - industry changers!!!!


I will have a look ; thanks . I co wrote the engineering Spec. for the Artic Pilot Project many moons ago . 180,000 Hp Arctic LNG vessel . At that time 3 by 60000 Hp gas turbines burning the boil off . Our PM at the time canned the projects in the North .
We did however follow up for a while and Sulzer were at that time in the final development stage of a nice big diesel designed to run on LNG . Concept was to use it for cruise conditions and only use the GT, for Ice breaking on the outer two screws assisted by the diesel on the centre screw . Made sense to me but never happened .

Cheers Derek


----------



## Varley

Hamish Mackintosh said:


> Funny thing about LNG,nobody ever mentions the energy expended or the cost to get it to that state, and I notice they use diesel driven compressors, why not LNG driven compressors


I would guess the answer to that is that burning it in boilers (and indeed other main engines) provides enough hazardous area hassle without burning it in auxiliaries. If it is there to burn then use for propulsion with waste/extra heat used for generating electricity - much cheaper (still guessing).


----------



## david freeman

a guess HFO is what the refineries throw out! and a large proportion of the bulk fleet maybe owned or chartered by the large and small pertro chemical conglomerates, hence they need a dustbin to remove the rubbish, and make money at the same time? It has always been thus? The Navies of the world with thier modern gas turbine plants burn internationally recogonised standards of fuel, that give reliability? Maybe steam and boilers may make a come back for burning the noxious and the nasties of the refinery crud? Meanwhile we use diesel power and the maintenance bills for operations and replacement spares keep an industry employed??


----------



## oldseamerchant

oldseamerchant said:


> Very true when you consider the maintenance costs being supported in the Super Slow Steaming regime now being operated by many.


Further to above. Entry level here for S.S.Kit, Alpha Lubricator and additional Auxy blower is in region USD300k. The additional maintenance numbers in terms of CBA have not yet been quantified but might well justifify thoughts of going back to IFO 180 (dirty Gas Oil) rather than HFO.


----------



## chadburn

The Scots may have to look at the possibility of drilling/fracking for Scottish Shale oil which has a low Sulpher Content and an ignition temp of around 251 deg C, gas oil being 254 deg C. Slow running on HFO was ok as long as you added a percentage of Diesel in the mix.


----------



## Duncan112

chadburn said:


> Slow running on HFO was ok as long as you added a percentage of Diesel in the mix.


Bank Line ran the alternator engines on a "blend" on the Fish Class and I have great doubts about the cost effectiveness of it when the increased wear on the engines and spare part consumption was taken into account. Having said that however it no doubt gave a slight competitive edge to charter rates and enabled the ships to trade for an additional 18 months before they were sold on. The first thing the Greeks did on purchase was to refit the MDO injectors and pumps though - they weren't having any of this heavy oil in alternator engines that weren't designed for it nonsense.

For the record the engines were Allens, some years later I sailed with the same engines that had been run exclusively on MDO - overhauling them was a pleasure and very few spares were used.


----------



## Brian Dobbie

Duncan112 said:


> Bank Line ran the alternator engines on a "blend" on the Fish Class and I have great doubts about the cost effectiveness of it when the increased wear on the engines and spare part consumption was taken into account. Having said that however it no doubt gave a slight competitive edge to charter rates and enabled the ships to trade for an additional 18 months before they were sold on. The first thing the Greeks did on purchase was to refit the MDO injectors and pumps though - they weren't having any of this heavy oil in alternator engines that weren't designed for it nonsense.
> 
> For the record the engines were Allens, some years later I sailed with the same engines that had been run exclusively on MDO - overhauling them was a pleasure and very few spares were used.


The blending equipment for the generators wasn't from SeaStar by any chance?


----------



## Duncan112

Can't remember but the name rings a bell - it was a crock of the proverbial anyway - along with the fuel meter and booster pump that did SFA because it had a bypass loop in it.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Substantially changed days in slow speeds these days with electronic control, infinitely variable injection timing, alpha lubricators, HP tuning via turbocharger and variable exhaust timing.

It is a complex subject at the moment with a massive change in technology and operating philosophy. The vast majority of engines at sea at the moment are at the higher end of the tuning spectrum (L4 on the charts) which has rendered them horribly uneconomic with present fuel prices. MAN has introduced its G series ultra long stroke that can give the power further down the rev range allowing detuning and a large propeller to be used towards the L1 point and ABB has released a new generation of turbos that change the tuning range in conjunction with variable exhaust valve timing. The upshot is that the engines have a massive continuous power range achievable on fuel oil with no alterations - down to 25% load. The next few years will see a substantial change in engine tuning and emissions methods and I personally suspect fuelling with LNG being the fuel of choice for most vessels - interesting times as they say.


----------



## oldseamerchant

Agreed.


----------



## Derek Roger

LNG was always the way to go . The upkeep of the engine is very low ( scavenge spaces would be clean ) Lube oil would be pristine ;very little requirement for purifiers ; few contaminents and a clean exhaust with full recovery of the exhaust boiler .


----------



## Hamish Mackintosh

Derek Roger said:


> LNG was always the way to go . The upkeep of the engine is very low ( scavenge spaces would be clean ) Lube oil would be pristine ;very little requirement for purifiers ; few contaminents and a clean exhaust with full recovery of the exhaust boiler .


I cannot speak to LNG but have had some experience with propane, and we were given the same story of pristine oil, and the advantage of extended oil change periods etc etc, however we changed about seventy five trucks over to propane, when the hyp was on thirty years or so ago, about saving the planet, reduced fuel cost etc, these were the standard run of the mill Chev 350 engines, used on door to door (high idle periods) delivery trucks, we did not repower on change over, but opted to run the old engines into the ground and repower on failure(when the valves had walked back into the heads, or the rings gave out)then we replaced them with engines rebuilt to propane specs(stellite valves, hardened valve seats, and the harder rings etc)what we found with the lube oil was, it did stay clear(I won't say clean)but failed at around 10000 klms, it turned into a varnish, and on removal of the pan(sump) on one siezed engine, it was like the pan had not been removed, there was a black shiney pan of varnish still on the engine, and not a drop of oil in the engine, the levels in these units were checked every day as they came off route and were refueled. We moved our oil change period back to 6000,klms where it had been before repower, so the fill em and forget em story was not quite true as far as propane went anyway


----------



## Derek Roger

Hamish Mackintosh said:


> I cannot speak to LNG but have had some experience with propane, and we were given the same story of pristine oil, and the advantage of extended oil change periods etc etc, however we changed about seventy five trucks over to propane, when the hyp was on thirty years or so ago, about saving the planet, reduced fuel cost etc, these were the standard run of the mill Chev 350 engines, used on door to door (high idle periods) delivery trucks, we did not repower on change over, but opted to run the old engines into the ground and repower on failure(when the valves had walked back into the heads, or the rings gave out)then we replaced them with engines rebuilt to propane specs(stellite valves, hardened valve seats, and the harder rings etc)what we found with the lube oil was, it did stay clear(I won't say clean)but failed at around 10000 klms, it turned into a varnish, and on removal of the pan(sump) on one siezed engine, it was like the pan had not been removed, there was a black shiney pan of varnish still on the engine, and not a drop of oil in the engine, the levels in these units were checked every day as they came off route and were refueled. We moved our oil change period back to 6000,klms where it had been before repower, so the fill em and forget em story was not quite true as far as propane went anyway


I wonder why the engine all of a suden had no oil ? Would not think the blame of the fuel .


----------



## Hamish Mackintosh

THe oil turned to a varnish type substance,which hardened, and took the shape of the pan, we had a couple of engine do this, and thats where the blame was placed by the oil analysis people,


----------



## oldseamerchant

Hamish Mackintosh said:


> THe oil turned to a varnish type substance,which hardened, and took the shape of the pan, we had a couple of engine do this, and thats where the blame was placed by the *oil analysis people*,


Always opened this correspondence with great trepidation.
A OK for continued use
B cautionary
C Suggest change the charge

B was sufficient for half the charge to be dropped and a refreshed with similar amount. Another analysis very next port. Look after the Lub and the engine will look after you.


----------



## chadburn

Duncan112 said:


> Bank Line ran the alternator engines on a "blend" on the Fish Class and I have great doubts about the cost effectiveness of it when the increased wear on the engines and spare part consumption was taken into account. Having said that however it no doubt gave a slight competitive edge to charter rates and enabled the ships to trade for an additional 18 months before they were sold on. The first thing the Greeks did on purchase was to refit the MDO injectors and pumps though - they weren't having any of this heavy oil in alternator engines that weren't designed for it nonsense.
> 
> For the record the engines were Allens, some years later I sailed with the same engines that had been run exclusively on MDO - overhauling them was a pleasure and very few spares were used.


Everything was tickety boo before 1972 but when the fuel crisis arrived we were told to reduce our fuel cost account's and along with availability which meant blending, this became a bit of a black art among Company Chief's as we were trying to out do each other on how much we could get away with. Drop in rev's=drop in speed= drop in the O/M jaw.


----------



## Nick Balls

http://www.dnv.com/binaries/fuel cell pospaper final_tcm4-525872.pdf


----------



## jmcg

Curious as to why the *oil analysis people's * correspondence should be opened by one from the navigation department.

Rather curious as to how a product of the 'navigation department' appears to have us believe he has a particular knowledge of engine lubrication and fuels.

J


----------



## John Dryden

Listening to the radio today about rising fuel costs in the UK the speaker said that the shift to LNG for ships is one of the factors in price rises.Seems like the world can,t get enough of it.


----------



## Derek Roger

John Dryden said:


> Listening to the radio today about rising fuel costs in the UK the speaker said that the shift to LNG for ships is one of the factors in price rises.Seems like the world can,t get enough of it.


I take it that is a rise in LNG ; not heavy oil . Cheers Derek


----------



## John Dryden

Yes Derek,rising gas prices passed on to us because of the demand for it in power stations,developing world,emmision control etc..Presume there will be a demand for new build LNG carriers too.


----------



## Derek Roger

John Dryden said:


> Yes Derek,rising gas prices passed on to us because of the demand for it in power stations,developing world,emmision control etc..Presume there will be a demand for new build LNG carriers too.


Thanks John ; We have not seen the prices rising much over here in Canada ( I hope they do then my small investment in shale gas may provide a few bottles of Scotch !)
Repsol are in the process of trying to sell off their share of the LNG terminal in Saint John New Brunswick ( an indeed worldwide ) as they see LNG prices going down due to a reported glut ?? Unusual for Repsol to be going the other way .
Mixed information to the public I fear .
LNG carriers will burn the fuel boil off but I doubt that conventional ships will convert to it as a source of fuel ( too complex and too expensive )

Heavy oil will still be the fuel of choice for the majority .

One mans view Derek .


----------



## chadburn

I agree with you there Derek and would add exhaust gas scrubbing with salt water rather than fresh which is done shoreside.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Conversion of the the engine is very straight forward as long as it is a ME. fuel supply is one of the reasons I am in Santa Ana at the moment but the big one is fuelling - Type C tanks are the way for conventional shipping with the ISO tanks also an option - there is a great deal of design going on at the moment for these and a huge amount of money going into bunkering ops. LNG make every engine Tier 2 compliant and makes Tier 3 achievement much easier, the problem with Teir 3 is it is a NOx reg and requires some serious kit - either exhaust gas recirc or Selective Catalysts - both have consumables - either urea or caustic and are big physically. On top of this the introducion of ECAs - emission control areas means vessels will be spending more and more time in areas requiring some sort of exhaust processing or fuel restrictions - LNG is a near one stop solution.


----------



## Clifford Cocker

*Use of HFO in Marine Diesel Engines*

Why? because it is cheaper, and the owners are nort really concerned about the extra work and time concerned in the pre-treatment concerned with HFO. We used to also run the Alternators on HFO via a very fancy Blender arrangement which regulated to mix of HFO and MDO according to the electrical load. Could never get it to work because we couldn't set the clock on the computer!
HFO (up to 380 Cst.) would burn quite well in Doxfords but did cause a highwer build up on carbon deposits in exhaust ports and turbochargers. We were quite fortunate in that we had sufficient crew to carry out the work, but how they manage these days with minimum manning I don't know. Glad to be retired!!!
Cliff Cocker


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Dead simple cliff - the problems are better understood and have been generally designed out of the equipment - hence no more blended fuel or diesel for manoeuvring


----------

