CO Emissions Abatement Technologies from Shipping

CO2 Emissions Abatement Technologies from Shipping Elias Yfantis, Efthimios Pariotis, Theodoros Zannis and John Katsanis and Ioannis Roumeliotis Hellenic Naval Academy Section of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering

Presentation Layout

 Global GHG Emissions Problem  Maritime Transport CO2 Emissions  IMO Initiatives for Shipping-Emitted CO2 Reduction  Abatement Measures of CO2 Emissions from Ships:  Operational  Technological  Conclusions

2

Presentation Layout


3

GHG Emissions – Global Mitigation Pathways [1]  CO2: Most important green-house gas (ghg) among others such as Methane.  Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2014): Global GHG Emissions Expected to Continue Grow due to Population and Economic Growth if, on Top of Current Efforts, No Extra Efforts are made to Reduce GHG Emissions [1] !!  Until 2100, Global Mean Surface (GMS) Temperature could Increase by 3.7 to 4.8oC compared to Pre-Industrial Levels [1].

[1] Cames M., Graichen V., Faber J. and Nelissen D., Greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for international 4 shipping, Environmental Research of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, 19 March 2015. http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/2241/2015-023-en.pdf

GHG Emissions – Global Mitigation Pathways [1,2]  GHG Concentration Could Reach a Level between 750 and More than 1300 ppm CO2 equivalents (CO2e). [1,2]  This is similar to the range in Atmospheric Concentration between Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) 6.0 and 8.5 (see figure below and next table) [1,2]

GHG emission pathways 2000-2100 [1,2] 5 [1] Cames M., Graichen V., Faber J. and Nelissen D., Greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for international shipping, Environmental Research of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear

GHG Emissions – Global Mitigation Pathways [1,2] Key characteristics of the scenarios collected and assessed for the Work Group III AR5 – IPCC [1,2]

6 [1] Cames M., Graichen V., Faber J. and Nelissen D., Greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for international shipping, Environmental Research of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear

GHG Emissions – Global Mitigation Pathways [1-3]  GMS Temperature to LIKELY Stay Below than 2oC above Pre-Industrial Levels during the 21st Century GHG Concentrations in Atmosphere should not Exceed 430 to 530 ppm CO2e [1-3]  This Would Require a Change in Emission of at Least 40 to 70% in 2050 Relative to 2010 Emission Level (Go back to Previous Slide – Red Box – Line 1) [1,2]  Transport‐Related CO2 Emissions Could Double by 2050 and More than Tremble by 2100, Compared to 2010, Without Policy Interventions and with a Continuation of the Current Demand Trend [1].  GHG Mitigating Scenarios: In order Global GHG Concentrations to be Around 450 ppm or 550 ppm CO2e in 2050, all Transport Modes should Improve their Fuel Efficiency Considerably, Use More Low Carbon Fuels and Adopt Behavioral Measures that Reduce Transport Demand and Emissions [1-3] [1] Cames M., Graichen V., Faber J. and Nelissen D., Greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for international 7 Nuclear shipping, Environmental Research of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Safety, 19 March 2015. http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/2241/2015-023-en.pdf, [2] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/, [3] Sims, R. et al. 2014: Chapter 8 – Transport. In: Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change

Presentation Layout


8

Maritime Transport CO2 Emission Projections [1,2] 

2012: International Shipping Emitted Just Over 800 Mt CO2 ≈ 2.1% of Global GHG Emissions [1,2].



CO2

emissions

from

Shipping

Projected to Increase Significantly: According to IMO 2014 Study [2] 

CO2

Emissions

are

Expected

to

Increase by 50 - 250% compared to 2012 levels in the Business-AsUsual (BAU) Scenarios until 2050. 

CO2 Emissions Increase until 2050

Range of CO2 Emissions in the BAU Scenarios [1,2]

Depends on Future Economic and Energy Developments [1,2] 

In Each of 4 BAU Scenarios Fleet Fuel Efficiency Improves by 40% by 2050 Compared to 2012 [1,2]

[1] Cames M., Graichen V., Faber J. and Nelissen D., Greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for international shipping, Environmental Research of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, 19 March 2015. http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/2241/2015-023-en.pdf, [2] IMO (International 9 Maritime Organization) 2014: Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships - Third IMO GHG Study 2014. London, http://www.iadc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MEPC-67-6-INF3-2014Final-Report-complete.pdf

Maritime Transport CO2 Emission Projections [1,2] 

Projected Growth of Shipping CO2 Emissions, Even With Increasingly Stringent Efficiency Measures, Means that the Share of Shipping Emissions In Total Emissions will Increase if Global Mitigation Scenarios Become Reality.



Range of CO2 Emissions in the Mitigation Scenarios [1,2]

When Global GHG Emissions Reduced in Line with a 2°C Target, but Shipping Emissions Allowed to Follow a

BAU

scenario,

Shipping

CO2

Emissions May Increase to 10% of Global CO2 Emissions in 2050.

Need for Immediate & Drastic Measures for Abatement of CO2 Emissions from Ships

[1] Cames M., Graichen V., Faber J. and Nelissen D., Greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for international shipping, Environmental Research of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, 19 March 2015. http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/2241/2015-023-en.pdf, [2] IMO (International10 Maritime Organization) 2014: Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships - Third IMO GHG Study 2014. London, http://www.iadc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MEPC-67-6-INF3-2014Final-Report-complete.pdf

CO2 Emissions & Fuel Consumption per Ship Type

Bottom – up CO2 Emissions from Int. Shipping by Ship Type [1]

Annual Fuel Consumption Broke Down by Ship Type and Machinery Component (Main Engine, Auxiliary and Boiler) 2012 [1]

Main & Auxiliary Engines Fuel Consumption: Dominant Source of CO2 Emissions from Ships. How Fuel Consumption Affects CO2 Emissions ???

See Next Slide

[1] Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014 http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Documents

11

Let’s Try to Remember Basic Combustion….Helps to Understand Combustion-Induced CO2 Qualitative Example of Diesel Surrogate (n-Heptane) Combustion Qualitative Example of Natural Gas Primary Constituent (Methane) Combustion

Quick Remarks:  Combustion-Emitted CO2 is Directly Analogous to Fuel Mass Burnt and to the Number of Fuel-Bound Carbon Atoms.  Same Mass of Different Molecular Complexity HCs Emit Different CO2 Values e.g. Theoretically Same Moles of Natural Gas Generate 7 Times Lower CO2 than Diesel !!

All CO2 Abatement Methods in Shipping Aim to Drastic Reduction of Fuel Consumption and/or Burning Low Molecular Complexity (Alternative) Fuels such as LNG (CH4) or Methanol (CH3OH)12

Presentation Layout


13

IMO Initiatives for Shipping-Emitted CO2 Energy Efficiency Design Index – EEDI (New Ships, Mandatory) [1,2]

Market Based Measures (New + Existing Ships, Not Universal) [1,2]

Ship Energy Efficiency Managemen t Plan – SEEMP (New + Existing Ships, Mandatory) [1,2]

Energy Efficiency Operational Index - EEOI (New + Existing Ships, Optional) [1,2] 14

[1] Pariotis et al., Energy Saving Techniques in Ships, Int. Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”, http://www.ashrae.gr/grt2016.php , [2] www.imo.org

Energy Efficiency Design Index – EEDI – 1/5

 Effective Since January 1st 2013 for all New Ships Not for Existing Ones [1,2].  EEDI Regulates the Amount of Fuel Each Type of Ship (New) Burns for a Certain Cargo Capacity [1,2].

15


Energy Efficiency Design Index – EEDI – 2/5 Main Engine

Shaft Motor Energy Efficient Technology (Electrical)

Energy Efficient Technology Aux. Engine (Propulsion Power)

Transport Work

16



17



Reduction of EEDI can be Attained by:  Reducing Installed Power of Main (PME) & Aux. Engines (PAE)  Reducing Lightweight for Increasing Capacity (DWT) 18


Energy Efficiency Design Index – EEDI – 5/5  Baseline EEDI Reference Line for Each Class of Vessels is the Average Energy Efficiency for the Specific Ship Type [1].  EEDI Reference Line is Calculated Through Data Filtering and Regression Analysis Taking Into Account Various Parameters such as Ship Design, Deadweight, Passengers or Tonnage [1].  Lower EEDI → More Energy – Efficient Ship & Less CO2 Burden from the Ship to the Atmosphere [1,2]

19


Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan – SEEMP – 1/2  Since Jan. 1st 2013 SEEMP is Mandatory for Both New & Existing Vessels with a Tonnage ≥ 400 GTs, Irrespective of Flag [1,2].  SEEMP Provides an Approach for Monitoring Ship and Fleet Efficiency Performance Over Time, and Encourages the Ship Owner, to Consider New Technologies and Practices When Seeking to Optimize Ship Performance [1].  SEEMP Incorporates Best Practices for the Fuel Efficient Operation of Ships, Leading to Significant Reduction of Fuel Consumption and CO2 emissions [2].

20


Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan – SEEMP – 2/2

Indicative SEEMP Actions Flow Chart [1]

21

[1] Pariotis et al., Energy Saving Techniques in Ships, Int. Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”, http://www.ashrae.gr/grt2016.php

Presentation Layout


22

CO2 Abatement Measures Classification [1,2]

IMO-Proposed CO2 Abatement Measures [1] Technological/ Technical

Operational

CO2 Emission Reduction using “Enhanced Hardware” [2]

CO2 Emission Reduction using “Operational Efforts” [2]

[1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Energy-Efficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 23 April 2011, [2] Juvenal Shiundu, Overview of IMO’s Work to Address GHG Emissions from Shipping, Helmepa: Where is Shipping Heading after COP21? Athens, Greece, 8 June 2016

CO2 Abatement Measures Classification

IMO-Proposed CO2 Abatement Measures [1] Technological

Operational

 Next Yellow - Background (Technological) and Orange –Background (Operational) Slides Consolidate Available CO2 Abatement Measures according to IMO [1].  For Each Measure it will be Given its [1]:  Description  Applicability  Technical Maturity  CO2 Abatement Potential  Cost – Payback Time  (R) in Next Yellow/Orange-Background Slides Indicates that a Measure can be Retrofitted [1]  (N) in Next Yellow/Orange-Background Slides Indicates that a Measure can be Applied only to New-Builds [1]

24 [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness of EnergyEfficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011

CO2 Technological Abatement Measures Grouping [1] – 1/3 Lightweight Construction (N) Optimization Hull Dimensions

Optimum Hull Dimensions (N)

Aft Waterline Extension (R)

Efficiency of Scale (Building Larger Ships) (N)

Using Larger Existing Ships

Increasing Cargo Load Factor

Propeller-rudder upgrade (Change of rudder profile and propeller) (R)

Propeller upgrade (Nozzle, tp winglets) (R)

Hull Coating Optimization Hull Openings Design Speed Reduction Optimization propeller – Hull Interface Air Lubrication (N) Propulsion Upgrade I

Propeller boss cap fins (R)

Optimized propeller blade section (R)


CO2 Technological Abatement Measures Grouping [1] – 2/3 Propulsion Upgrade II

Counter-rotating propellers (N)

Wing Pulling thrusters (N) thrusters (N)

Main Engine Adjustments

Common Rail (R)

Diesel Electric Drive (N)

Towing Kile (R)

Wind Engines (R)

Low energy Lighting (R)

Energy Efficient HVAC (R)

Diesel – Electric Drive and Diesel – Mechanical Drive (N)

Main Engine Tuning (R)

Waste Heat Recovery (R) Wind Power Hybrid Auxiliary Power Generation (N) Solar Power (R) Reducing Onboard Power Demand (Hotel Services)

Energy Efficient Appliances (R)


CO2 Technological Abatement Measures Grouping [1] – 3/3

Speed Control of Pumps and Fans (R) Scrubber (R) Fuel – Efficient Boilers (R) Low Loss Power Distribution (N) Alternative Fuels

LNG (R)

Biofuel (R)


CO2 Operational Abatement Measures Grouping [1] Operational Speed Reduction

Speed Reduction

Voyage Optimization including Reduced Port Time

Using Larger Existing Ships

Increasing Cargo Load Factor

Propeller Polishing (At Regular Intervals)

Propeller Polishing when Required (Including Monitoring)

Bulbous Bow (R)

Optimization of ballast and trim Efficiency of Scale Weather Routing Autopilot Upgrade/Adjustment Increasing Energy Awareness (Hotel Services) Propeller Maintenance

Hull Cleaning [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness 28 of EnergyEfficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011

Presentation Layout


29

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Operational Speed Reduction Specific Measure: Speed Reduction Description  Ships Reduce Their Power Requirement by Operating at Lower Speed and Hence, Reduce their Fuel Consumption.  Rule of thumb: Power Requirement Varies with Third Power of Ship Speed → 10% Ship Speed Reduction Gives Almost 27% Reduction in Shaft Power Requirements.  Note: Ship Sailing 10% Slower Would Use Approximately 11% more time to cover a certain distance.  New Rule of Thumb: Quadratic Relation Between Speed & Fuel Consumption → 10% Speed Reduction Results in Almost 20% Reduction in Engine Power. [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost 30 Effectiveness of Energy-Efficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Operational Speed Reduction Specific Measure: Speed Reduction Description  Between 100% MCR & 50% MCR, Fuel Consumption Varies Almost Linearly with Shaft Power i.e. SFOC is Constant within a Range of ±3%.  At 25% MCR SFOC Increases to About 10% Above Optimum SFOC of 2-Stroke Main Engine → Engine Uses 10% More Fuel Per Unit of Power  Below 25% MCR only Few Consumption Data are Available with Increases between 40% to 100% Compared to Optimum: At this Engine Loading Range the Rule of Thumb cannot be Applied. [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost 31 Effectiveness of Energy-Efficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Operational Speed Reduction Specific Measure: Speed Reduction Description [1,2] Speed (% of design speed)

Engine Power (% of MCR)

Fuel Consumption

100%

75%

100%

90%

55%

73%

80%

38%

52%

70%

26%

35%

[1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness 32 of EnergyEfficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Operational Speed Reduction Specific Measure: Speed Reduction Description  Potentiality to Reduce Ship Speed is Limited.  Engines Cannot Operate at Any Load Without Proper Adjustments.  Min Engine Load Depends on Specs from Manufacturer.  Slow Steaming Means Long-Term Engine Operation at Part Load (30 – 50% MCR) → This May Cause Serious Engine Damage !!  E-Controlled Engines are More Flexible to Operate at Part Load → More Suitable for Slow Steaming than Mech-Controlled Engines.

[1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost 33 Effectiveness of Energy-Efficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Operational Speed Reduction Specific Measure: Speed Reduction Applicability  Having Given Engine Part Load Operation Obstacles, Slow Steaming can be Applied to All Ship Types & Size Categories.  Ships Obliged to Maintain a Route/Time Schedule such as Cruise Vessels and Ferries will Probably not make use of this Measure. Technical Maturity Slow Steaming is Implemented by many Shipping Companies Facing High Fuel Costs & Low Transport Demand → Considered as Technically Mature Option ! Abatement Potential  CO2 Abatement Potential of a Group of Tankers, Bulkers, General Cargo and Containers due Speed Reduction by 10% is 19% [1].  Same IMO Study [1] Considering Same Group of Ships Reported a CO2 Abatement Potential of 36% for 20% Ship Speed Reduction. 34 [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness of EnergyEfficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Operational Speed Reduction Specific Measure: Speed Reduction Costs  Extra Capacity i.e. New Vessels Must be Used when Ships are Slow Steaming & the Same Transport Work has to be done.  Non-Recurring Cost of “Speed Reduction” → Cost for Purchasing an Extra New Vessel.  Annual Recurring Cost is the Operational Cost of an Extra Vessel.

Next 2 Slides Reproduce Non-Recurring Costs & Annual Recurring Costs for Different Types of Vessels Derived by pertinent IMO Study [1] 35 [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness of EnergyEfficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Operational Speed Reduction Specific Measure: Speed Reduction Non –Recurring Cost (2007 $) – High Values vs. Ship Type for 10% Speed Reduction / Diagram Higher Value: 173,040,000$

Figure Data Reproduced from Ref. [1] 36 [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness of EnergyEfficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Operational Speed Reduction Specific Measure: Speed Reduction Annual Recurring Cost (2007 $) – High Values vs. Ship Type for 10% Speed Reduction / Diagram Higher Value: 3,514,500 $

Figure Data Reproduced from Ref. [1] 37 [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness of EnergyEfficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Operational Speed Reduction Specific Measure: Voyage optimization including reduced port time Description  Usually, Ship Operator & Charterer Stipulate a Certain Speed in the Charter Party.  In case of Port Congestion, Contracted Speed is Not the Optimal One in Terms of Fuel Consumption.  The Ship Could Have Been Unloaded at the Very Same Time but Could Have Saved Fuel by Reducing its Speed at Sea.


CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Operational Speed Reduction Specific Measure: Voyage optimization including reduced port time Description  Concepts like the Virtual Arrival Try to Tackle this Common Problem.  Here Ship Operator & Charterer Agree on a Specific Speed Reduction Against the Contracted Speed for the case that the Ship is to be Delayed on Arrival Due to Port Congestion or the Like.  To Reduce the Ships' Time in Port is Another Possibility of Creating Space for Speed Reduction. 39 [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness of EnergyEfficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Operational Speed Reduction Specific Measure: Voyage optimization including reduced port time Applicability  Primarily for Dry & Liquid Bulk Vessels on spot charter [1]. Technical Maturity  Technical Feasible Measure [1]. Abatement Potential  Based on Navigistics Consulting [1]: 0-10%.


CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Operational Speed Reduction Specific Measure: Voyage optimization including reduced port time Costs  Not Known [1] !!  Comment#1: Making Use of a Virtual Arrival System Incurs the Costs for a Third Party Needed to Calculate The Revised Estimated Time of Arrival [2].  Comment#2: Costs for Reducing the Time in Port are Related with the Costs for a More Efficient Port Infrastructure (which may be passed onto the charterers by means of harbor fees) and/or with the Costs for more Efficient Onboard Loading Devices. [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness of EnergyEfficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 41 April 2011, [2] Portworld. (2009). "Virtual Arrival' initiative to cut fuel use and emissions." Retrieved June 2010, from

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Operational Speed Reduction Specific Measure: Bulbous Bow Description A Horizontal Extension of the Bow, Just Below The Water Surface, Can Reduce the Drag of the Bow Wave with Respect to the Hull [2]

Applicability  Primarily for Vessels With Higher Speed to Length Ratios (e.g., Container & Cruise Ships) [1]. [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost 42 Effectiveness of Energy-Efficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011, [2] Trudeau and Matthew (2009). Bulbous Flow Characteristics.

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Operational Speed Reduction Specific Measure: Bulbous Bow Technical Maturity  Available on the Market [1]. Abatement Potential  At Least 10%; Though Most Ships Already Have Bulbous Bows.  Abatement Potential is Further Limited to Improved Bulbous Bow Designs.  A Bulbous Bow is Only Leading to a Reduction of Fuel Consumption when the Ship is Operated at its Design Speed.  Temporary Speed Reduction Reduces the Efficiency Improvements of a Bulbous Bow.  If A Ships Speed is Permanently Reduced, A New Bow Should Be Installed to Recapture the Efficiency Gains. [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost 43 Effectiveness of Energy-Efficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011, [2] Trudeau and Matthew (2009). Bulbous Flow Characteristics.

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Operational Speed Reduction Specific Measure: Bulbous Bow Costs  There are Investments Associated with a Bulbous Bow [1].  According to IMO Study 2011, there was not an Estimation of These Costs [1].  Others: Medium Payback Investment.


CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Measure: Optimization of Trim & Ballast Description  The Trim that is Optimal for a Vessel under Different Conditions Can Be Detected through Monitoring [1].  Trim can be Improved by Arranging Bunkers, by Positioning Cargo or by Varying the Amount of Ballast Water [1].  Taking Extra Ballast Water Leads to an Increased Displacement & Therefore to an Increased Fuel Consumption [1]. Abatement Potential Payback Time

Less than 5% [2] Short [2]

[1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Energy-Efficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, 45 Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011, [2] Wärtsilä (2008). Boosting energy efficiency, Energy efficiency catalogue. Helsinki, Wärtsilä Corporation.

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Measure: Optimization of Trim & Ballast Costs  Optimization of Trim & Ballast Requires a Vessel Performance Monitoring System.  Investments are Related with Buying or Developing such a System [1].  Operational Costs Related with Collecting & Analyzing Data & With Changing Trim And Ballast [1].  The costs are not known.


CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Economies of Scale Specific Measure: Using Larger Existing Ships Description  Fuel Consumption Per Tonne Mile is Higher For Smaller Than For Larger Ships.  Hence, Fuel Savings Can Be Gained By Using Larger Instead Of Smaller Ships As Long A There Is Sufficient Demand For Transport [1].  The Use Of Larger Ships May Be Constrained By Port, Canal And Lock Dimensions [1].  Over The Last Decades, The Average Vessel Size Has Increased Considerably, Especially In Container Ships [1].  It Is Expected That This Trend Will Continue. [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost 47 Effectiveness of Energy-Efficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Economies of Scale Specific Measure: Using Larger Existing Ships Applicability  All Cargo/Passenger Transport Related Ship Types.  Cargo Lot Sizes are Determined by the Commodity Buyer/Seller & may not Exactly Match Ship Capacity.

Abatement Potential Less than 4% [2]

[1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness 48 of EnergyEfficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011, [2] Wärtsilä (2008). Boosting energy efficiency, Energy efficiency catalogue. Helsinki, Wärtsilä Corporation.

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Economies of Scale Specific Measure: Using Larger Existing Ships Payback Time  Larger ships have lower operational costs [1].  At the margin, the payback time is short. Costs  If the Average Size of Ships Increases, the Capital Costs Per Ship Increase but Unit Transport Cost Decrease  According to IMO Study These Costs have not been Quantified [1].

[1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost 49 Science Effectiveness of Energy-Efficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Economies of Scale Specific Measure: Increasing Cargo Load Factor Description  Ships Often Do Operate Without Fully Making Use of their Cargo Loading Capacity.  If The Load Factor Of Ships Was Increased, The Emissions Of These Ships Would Increase Due To The Increased Weight Of The Vessel.  However, This Increase Would Be Outweighed By The Emissions Saving Of Using A Smaller Number Of Ships.  The Uptake Of This Measure Is Limited By The Fact That The Cargo Load Factor Is Often Set By Transport Demand. Increasing It May Require Changes In Logistics. [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost 50 Effectiveness of Energy-Efficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Economies of Scale Specific Measure: Increasing Cargo Load Factor Abatement Potential  Not Known [1]. Costs  Higher Load Factors Have Negative Costs, Although There May Be Positive Costs Associated With Logistical Services And Optimization [1].


CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Economies of Scale Specific Measure: Weather Routing  There are Weather Routing Services Available that help to Description

Optimize a Ship Route for Given Weather Conditions.  Reduction of Travel Time Leads to Reduction of Fuel Consumption.

Applicability

Ocean-going Vessels that have Route Flexibility [1].


CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Economies of Scale Specific Measure: Weather Routing Abatement Potential  0.1-4% [2].  However, a Significant Portion of World's Fleet Already Employs This Technology → Actual Abatement Potential Much Lower. Costs  US $800 – UW $1,600 p.a. [2]  Costs are the same for all vessel types [1,2].

[1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness of EnergyEfficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 53 April 2011, [2] Buhaug, Ø., et al. (2009). Second IMO GHG Study 2009 Update of the 2000 GHG Study: Final Report covering Phrase 1 and Prase 2. Longdon, IMO.

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Economies of Scale Specific Measure: Autopilot Adjustment Description  Adjusting the autopilot to the route and the operation area prevents unnecessary use of the rudder for keeping the ship on course. Abatement Potential  0.5 – 3% [2].  However, a Significant Portion of World's Fleet Already Employs This Technology → Actual Abatement Potential Much Lower Payback Time

Short [3]

[1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Energy-Efficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011, [2] Buhaug, Ø., et al. (2009). Second IMO GHG Study 54 2009 Update of the 2000 GHG Study: Final Report covering Phrase 1 and Prase 2. Longdon, IMO, [3] Wärtsilä

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Economies of Scale Specific Measure: Increasing Energy Awareness Description  Increasing Crew Energy Awareness by Training can Lead to a Behavioral Change that Have an Impact on Ships’ fuel Consumption.  Energy Awareness Means Turning Off Lights, Optimizing HVAC etc. Costs

Abatement Potential

 There are Crew Training Costs.

 Not Known [1]

 Operational Costs are Negative.

 Other [2]: < 10%

 Payback Time: Short [1].


CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Propeller Maintenance Specific Measure: Propeller Polishing General Info  Propeller Surfaces can be Cleaned to Reduce Roughness & the Accumulation of Organic Materials [1].  This can be done on a Regular Basis or when Monitoring of the Propeller Performance gives an Indication to do so.  Propeller Polishing has Widely been Used over Recent Years.  Half of the Maximum Abatement Potential has already been Captured According to 2011 IMO Study [1].  Estimates Based on Industry Interviews [1].


CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Propeller Maintenance Specific Measure: Propeller Polishing on a Regular Basis Abatement Potential

2 – 5%

 $3000 - $ 5000 per polishing for a Costs

single screw vessel  A quantity discount may be provided.

Specific Measure: Propeller Polishing when Required (Including Monitoring) Abatement Potential

2.5 – 8%


CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Propeller Maintenance Specific Measure: Hull Cleaning Description  Reduction of Hull Frictional Resistance Results

in

Reduction

of

Fuel

Consumption & CO2 Emissions.  This is often the Outcome of a Hull Resistance Management Program.  One way for Reducing Hull Frictional Resistance is to Increase the Hull Smoothness through Coatings that Prevent/Reduce Fouling.  Hull can be Cleaned Periodically - This is Considered Here. [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost 58 Science Effectiveness of Energy-Efficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011

CO2 Operational Abatement Measures [1] Group of Measures: Propeller Maintenance Specific Measure: Hull Cleaning Abatement Potential  1 - 10% [2].  However, a Significant Portion of World's Fleet Already Employs This Technology → Actual Abatement Potential Much Lower Costs  Cleaning the Entire Hull Costs $35 - $45 Per Foot of the Ship based on the Length Overall (LOA).  This is based on Interviews with Hull-cleaning Companies [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Energy-Efficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, 59 Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 April 2011, [2] Buhaug, Ø., et al. (2009). Second IMO GHG Study 2009 Update of the 2000 GHG Study: Final Report covering Phrase 1 and Prase 2. Longdon, IMO

Presentation Layout


60

CO2 Technological Abatement Measures [1] Measure: Lightweight Construction Description  Ship’s Weight can be Reduced using Lightweight Structures.  Steel can be replaced by Lighter Weight Alternatives in Non-Structural Elements or by Lower Weight High-Tensile Steel.  At present, Lightweight Materials Such as Aluminium, Carbon Fibre or Glassfibre

Sandwich

Constructions

are

Mainly used on Planning High-Speed Craft [1,2].  It

is

Anticipated

Common Facilitate

that

Structural the

Use

of

the

New

Rules

will

Lightweight

Materials (e.g., Increased Use of High Tensile Steel). [1] IMO REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness of EnergyEfficiency Measures, Submitted by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), 8 61 April 2011, [2] Buhaug, Ø., et al. (2009). Second IMO GHG Study 2009 Update of the 2000 GHG Study: Final Report covering Phrase 1 and Prase 2. Longdon, IMO

CO2 Technological Abatement Measures [1-3] Measure: Lightweight Construction Applicability Technical Maturity Abatement Potential Payback Time

All Ship Types [1]. High Tensile Steel is Already Used to some Extent [2]  Potential: