In recent years, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), Europe, and the United States and other countries have set up different emission control areas (ECA) for ship exhaust pollutants to enforce more stringent pollutant emission regulations. In order to meet the current IMO Tier III emission regulations, an after-treatment device must be installed in the exhaust system of the ship power plant to reduce the ship NOx emissions. At present, selective catalytic reduction technology (SCR) is one of the main technical routes to resolve excess NOx emissions of marine diesel engines, and is the only NOx emission reduction technology recognized by the IMO that can be used for various ship engines. Compared with the conventional low-pressure SCR system, the high-pressure SCR system can be applied to low-speed marine diesel engines that burn inferior fuels, but its working conditions are relatively harsh, and it can be susceptible to operational problems such as sulfuric acid corrosion, salt blockage, and switching delay during the actual ship tests and ship applications. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the design method and matching strategy of the high-pressure SCR system to achieve a more efficient and reliable operation. This article summarizes the technical characteristics and application problems of marine diesel engine SCR systems in detail, tracks the development trend of the catalytic reaction mechanism, engine tuning, and control strategy under high sulfur exhaust gas conditions. Results showed that low temperature is an important reason for the formation of ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, and other deposits. Additionally, the formed deposits will directly affect the working performance of the SCR systems. The development of SCR technology for marine low-speed engines should be the compromise solution under the requirements of high sulfur fuel, high thermal efficiency, and low pollution emissions. Under the dual restrictions of high sulfur fuel and low exhaust temperature, the low-speed diesel engine SCR systems will inevitably sacrifice part of the engine economy to obtain higher denitrification efficiency and operational reliability.
The shipping industry has reached a higher level of maturity in terms of its knowledge and awareness of decarbonization challenges. Carbon-free or carbon-neutralized green fuel, such as green hydrogen, green ammonia, and green methanol, are being widely discussed. However, little attention has paid to the green fuel pathway from renewable energy to shipping. This paper, therefore, provides a review of the production methods for green power (green hydrogen, green ammonia, and green methanol) and analyzes the potential of green fuel for application to shipping. The review shows that the potential production methods for green hydrogen, green ammonia, and green methanol for the shipping industry are (1) hydrogen production from seawater electrolysis using green power; (2) ammonia production from green hydrogen + Haber–Bosch process; and (3) methanol production from CO2 using green power. While the future of green fuel is bright, in the short term, the costs are expected to be higher than conventional fuel. Our recommendations are therefore as follows: improve green power production technology to reduce the production cost; develop electrochemical fuel production technology to increase the efficiency of green fuel production; and explore new technology. Strengthening the research and development of renewable energy and green fuel production technology and expanding fuel production capacity to ensure an adequate supply of low- and zero-emission marine fuel are important factors to achieve carbon reduction in shipping.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.