MTZ industrial

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 62–71 | Cite as

Well-to-wake Greenhouse Gas Emissions from LNG in Marine Applications

  • Max Kofod
  • Torsten Mundt
Research Fuels

As a fuel for marine propulsion and onboard power generation, natural gas has proven advantages in terms of NOx and SOx emissions. Given the efficiencies of lean burn gas engines and that natural gas’ prime constituent, methane, is the simplest combination of carbon and hydrogen in the hydro-carbon series, expectations are also high in terms of low greenhouse gas emissions. Classification society DNV-GL and Shell Global Solutions have investigated this aspect on a “well-to-wake” basis.


This review includes the most recent studies regarding the environmental performance of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a marine fuel. It employs a well-established approach for assessing the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of fuels known as “Well-to-Wheel” for land-based sectors and “Well-to-Wake” (WtW) for ships. Also examined are aspects of the WtW analysis that are often overlooked in the publications reviewed but which can result in a more comprehensive greenhouse gas analysis for those marine...


Selective Catalytic Reduction Mtpa Reference Fuel Marine Fuel Methane Slip 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. [1]
  2. [2]
    JRC Technical Reports 2013: Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context. Well to Tank Report, Version 4, July 2013Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    TNO / ECN 2013: Natural Gas in Transport — An Assessment of Different Routes, Delft.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Lowell, D.; Wang, H,; Lutsey, N.; Assessment of the Fuel Cycle Impact of Liquefied Natural Gas as Used in international Shipping. ICCT/International Council on Clean Transportation, White Paper, 2013Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Bengtsson, S.: Life Cycle Assessment of Present and Future Marine Fuels. Chalmers University of Technology, 2011Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Ballegaard, T: Dual-fuel Retrofit — ME-GI. MAN, 2012Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Impact of Marine Fuels Quality Legislation on EU Refineries at the 2020 Horizon, CONCAWE Report No. 3/09, 2009Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Purvin & Gertz Inc.: Impacts on the EU Refining Industry and Markets of IMO Specification Changes & Other Measures to Reduce the Sulphur Content of Certain Fuels. Report Prepared for the Directorate General Environment of the European Commission, Brussels, 2009Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Hongrui, M.; et al: Well-to-wake energy and Greenhouse Has Analysis of SOx Abatement Options for the Marine Industry. Transportation Research Part D 17, pp. 301–308, 2012Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Danish Ministry of the Environment: Assessment of Possible Impacts of Scrubber Water Discharges on the Marine Environment. Environmental Project No. 1431, 2012Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    U.S. EPA: Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Effluent, Washington DC 20460Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Lloyds Register: Understanding Exhaust Gas Treatment Systems — Guidance for Shipowners and Operators, 2012zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Williams. P.J.le B: The Natural Oceanic Carbon and Sulfur Cycles: Implications for SO2 and CO2 Emissions from Marine Shipping. International Journal of the Society for Underwater Technology No.29, pp. 5–19, 2009CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
  15. [15]
    MEPC 67/4 (Fuel sulphur monitoring)Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Brandt. A.R; et al: Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems. In: Science Vol. 343, February 2014Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Max Kofod
    • 1
  • Torsten Mundt
    • 2
  1. 1.Shell Global Solutions (Deutschland) GmbHHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Environmental Research & DevelopmentDNV GL — MaritimHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations