Exhaust gas economizer on auxiliary engines - A case study of potential savings that can be made by installing an exhaust gas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With more expensive bunker oil prices and much tougher environmental requirements, it is of major importance for shipping companies to reduce their consumption of fuel oil today than it ever has been before. There are many ways to lower the consumption; the most efficient would be to reduce the speed of the vessel. This study has however focused on the potential savings that could be made by installing an exhaust gas economizer for the auxiliary engine on board ships. \n\nThe reason why many ships have not installed economizers on their auxiliary engines is because the investment has not been considered necessary before. This work is primarily a case study on the vessel M/V Stena Forecaster, but can probably be seen as a general guideline as well.\n\nOn-board data from the ship and information from manufacturers has been collected, in order to calculate the steam need for the ship during the period of May 2015, as well as how much steam an exhaust gas economizer could produce during the conditions of May 2015. \n\nThe exhaust gas economizer in this study would be installed on a Wärtsilä 9L20C engine, and the economizer selected is an Aalborg XS TC7A from Alfa Laval.\n\nThe result shows the possibilities and potential savings of this investment in terms of lower fuel oil consumption for the auxiliary boilers, the environmental benefits with reduced emissions, a possible installation location and a reasonable pay-back time for the current sailing route. This can however differ widely depending on for example sailing routes and weather conditions. \n\nAn investment of this sort should be discussed having in mind the age of the ship, sailing route, and who pays for the bunker oil. In this particular case the owner does not pay for the bunker, the charter does, and therefore the investment cannot be seen as a direct profit for the owner. However, the ship could be more attractive for future charters if the overall fuel oil consumption is lower. A lower fuel oil consumption is also directly beneficial for the environment.\n
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".