Preparing for a transformed market: WinGD’s Dominik Schneiter

From an engine design and operation perspective, what do you think have been the most important technological innovations during your career?

Just talking about engine technology, we have seen many changes, from electronic controlled common rail engines through to the introduction of Tier 1 and Tier 2 regulations on emissions. [The Motorship notes that Sulzer RT-Flex engines were the first to incorporate use electronic controlled common rail systems for fuel injection and valve actuation in 2000].

We have also managed a number of changes of fuel, such as the reduction of sulphur limits to 3.5%, and recently down to 0.5%. Regulation also led us to make the engine more efficient, with higher power densities and peak pressures.

Digitalisation itself is nothing new. Its just another name for what we used to call alarm and monitoring systems and case-based maintenance systems in the ships. Unmanned machinery was already being developed in the 1970s. But it is true that our ability to connect systems has changed radically in recent years. While we have been most affected by the integration of the power system onboard the ship, we have also seen a transformation with the ability to integrate data from other sources, such as route planning, weather planning, cargo planning and so on.

As a mechanical engineer by training, how do you see the future role of the internal combustion engine? Will it remain the main mover for marine transportation in the future?

The short answer is that, as long as we need high power output to move large deep-sea vessels, two-stroke low-speed engines will remain the work horse of marine transportation. However, unless we want to install nuclear power plants, no viable alternative exists at the moment. And unfortunately public opinion just isn’t ready for nuclear plants aboard ships right now.

But the way that we design a vessel’s propulsion system is likely to continue to evolve. We may see a reduction in the size of gensets, and there is even a chance that we may see smaller energy sources being replaced by renewable energy sources in some instances. The main change is that we will see much more system integration. By situating the two-stroke main mover at the heart of a much more integrated network of energy producers and consumers, it will be possible to combine PTO and PTI solutions with an electrical grid. In fact, we have recently started quoting to a few select customers for a first commercial installation where we would act as system integrator handling the energy management system, combining an X-DF engine with PTI/PTO and an energy storage system.

I’m positive that the internal combustion engine will remain at the heart of vessel propulsion for a long time to come.

How is WinGD responding to the challenges of developing energy efficient solutions in response to IMO decarbonisation goals?

Despite political pressures from outside the industry, we are seeing players in the industry who have set very ambitious targets who want to go further than the IMO initial roadmap. This is triggering investments on the technology side, from both private and institutional sources. We will soon see the introduction of viable technical solutions that can be applied on board, some of which are currently being partially tested on board. These would just prove the concept that large vessels can be operated on a carbon neutral basis.

We have heard many different perspectives on potential zero carbon fuels. What is your perspective about the current debate about alternative fuels?

As I just mentioned, we are making progress in developing solutions to help shipping meet or exceed current IMO targets. The main challenge is around the fuel: whatever fuel we opt for needs to be available in the volumes needed for the market.

The obvious solution would be hydrogen or another hydrogen-derivate (such as ammonia), but we expect other industries will pay a premium to access these high-quality fuels first. I would expect that shipping will process waste products from synthetic sources or bio fuels, such as bio-methane. So, we will be working with a mix of fuels, which will require our solutions to be equally flexible, technologically.

Fortunately, our X-DF concept has the capability to burn all of the fuels being discussed. From a technological perspective, we are confident that we can handle all of the fuels being discussed.

The key challenge is more of a political one, which is to ensure the fuels are available at fair prices. I think more work is required on that side of things.

Only one alternative fuel has been successfully introduced commercially into the market. Looking at the current market for LNG-fuelled vessels, how do you see the technology and the market evolving?

If you look at alternative fuels that are currently widely available, and becoming more available, LNG is the only viable alternative to low sulphur fuels at present. DNV GL also identified LNG as the main transition fuel until 2050 in its latest Alternative Fuels report. The fuel has a number of other advantages: crews are familiar with using LNG as a fuel, and the necessary regulations are in place. The IGF Code exists.

Finally, there is another major advantage for LNG compared with other fuels. Public attention has largely focused on the global warming potential of greenhouse gases, and has moved away from the toxic emissions. But I expect public attention to switch back towards the local impact of NOx, SOx and PM emissions. The EU is already pushing in that direction.

Finally, LNG can be easily blended with either LBG or synthetic liquefied natural gas, which are more sustainable than fossil energy.

Looking forward, we are working on concepts to convert an X-DF engine in order to make it compatible with alternatives like methanol, looking at the fuel supply system and other shipboard systems. Converting an LNG-fuelled X-DF engine to operate on alternative fuels will be easier than if you have a traditional HFO engine and just want to run it on a new fuel.

You have recently announced the launch of the first of a series of efficiency improvements for the X-DF2.0. Tell us about the iCER, and how far you think methane slip can be reduced?

iCER is the first new technology introduced as part of X-DF2.0. With the extensive experience we have in our low-pressure dual-fuel X-DF engine portfolio, we recognized the potential for further optimisation. This year we introduced iCER – Intelligent Control by Exhaust Recycling. iCER, based on an EGR concept, delivers enhanced combustion control by cooling and recirculating part of the exhaust gas through a low-pressure path during operation in gas mode. The result is a reduction in methane slip emissions of up to 50% when using LNG and a significant reduction of fuel consumption, of 3% in gas mode and 5% in diesel mode.

Do you see further possibilities for further advances in LNG engine efficiency?

The Otto cycle technology is still pretty new for low speed two stroke engines, and further development steps can be expected. While the X-DF2.0 development, which largely addressed methane slip efficiencies was the main one, there will be more. The technology’s admission of the fuel mixtures into the part stroke is unique. We are confident that we can improve on the fuel efficiency in future. And of course, the ability to switch between diesel and gaseous fuels offers certainty in terms of future asset value. The technology combines a high degree of flexibility with a rather low cost and simple system.

What is your perspective on regional developments, such as extending the Emissions Trading System to shipping?

We think regulations are helpful and can prompt technological developments. But we would prefer global standards to be agreed, so we only need to develop one set of solutions to comply with them. This has been the case with NECA areas in North America and Europe, for example, where we could develop one solution.

Similarly, a Carbon Levy could be a powerful tool, if you used the money generated from a levy for technological development funds. That could be an interesting way of developing new technologies. The Norwegians have demonstrated the benefits of this approach for decades. But it would create difficulties for us as technology developers if Europe introduced a different model to the United States, for example.

Finally, looking ahead, are there any other solutions that we can expect to see added to the portfolio over the next few months?

We expect to complete the roll out of our new engine control system by the middle of next year. This was first introduced on the X92-DF and we will have switched over our X82-DF by December.