An alternative route to achieving energy efficiency and greener shipping
Mon, 12 Jul 2010
Simon Burnay reflects on how a comprehensive energy management strategy for shipping could lead to significantly reduced fuel consumption
Current estimates indicate that shipping’s share of global carbon emissions could increase to 20-30% by 2050. With 90% of global trade carried by sea, this is an issue that cannot be sidestepped. However, commercial realities must be recognised and “green” solutions with tangible commercial benefits may provide significantly more leverage to establish the win-win situation that will reduce costs and limit damage to the environment.
Suitable solutions are available: new technology can be harnessed to reduce fuel consumption through improvements in engine efficiency and reduced hull drag; changes in operational procedures can also deliver environmental and commercially beneficial improvements in voyage planning and speed optimisation (or slow-steaming). However, there is a potential downside to these changes: will we need extra ships to cater for trade growth? Should new ships be designed with slow-steaming in mind in order to optimise their efficiency? These complex questions must be addressed.
The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has already identified the importance of shipboard energy efficiency and has established the Shipboard Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP). This document seeks to improve a ship’s energy efficiency through four steps: planning, implementation, monitoring and self-evaluation and improvement.
In order for the SEEMP to be effective, it is essential to have a performance baseline in place. Solutions, such as BMT’s Smart Power, record and collate real-time performance data, providing considerable improvements over the standard manual “noon” reporting process. By analysing good quality data, it is possible to break down the overall performance into individual components (engine, propeller, hull performance), identify where efficiency losses are being introduced into the system and react accordingly.
Maintenance can be optimised by moving away from fixed schedules to “condition-based” approaches. One of the first ships that deployed Smart Power technology had a hull-clean ahead of schedule, based on data indicating a worsening of hull performance. This resulted in a direct saving of approximately seven tonnes of fuel a day and associated reduced emissions. The system had only been on board for two months, so immediately ticked the “win-win” boxes in delivering environmental and commercial benefit.
Innovative ship design can also be harnessed to ensure “greener” operation. Regulatory requirements have often been based around limiting exhaust emissions for NOx, SOx and so on, per kilowatt used, and this has led to a focus on the use of cleaner diesel engines and/or exhaust treatment. To the naval architect, this does not provide any incentive or requirement to try and reduce the energy required to drive a ship with a certain payload at a given speed. However, future requirements are certain to see increased focus on emissions-indexing of ships, such as the recommendatory guidelines given in MEPC Circ 471. These guidelines put forward an index for the energy efficiency of a ship in terms of carbon emitted per unit of transport work and this type of future regulation will drive a need for more efficient ship design.
Success also depends on the buy-in of the crews using the new technology or deploying new working practices. When there are examples of two very similar ships running two very similar routes with very different performance, the only real variable is the crew. It is hardly surprising that operators are beginning to give their crews bonuses based on improvements in fuel consumption and related environmental aspects.
Simon Burnay is Director of the Shipping and Ports division of BMT Argoss
Suitable solutions are available: new technology can be harnessed to reduce fuel consumption through improvements in engine efficiency and reduced hull drag; changes in operational procedures can also deliver environmental and commercially beneficial improvements in voyage planning and speed optimisation (or slow-steaming). However, there is a potential downside to these changes: will we need extra ships to cater for trade growth? Should new ships be designed with slow-steaming in mind in order to optimise their efficiency? These complex questions must be addressed.
The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has already identified the importance of shipboard energy efficiency and has established the Shipboard Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP). This document seeks to improve a ship’s energy efficiency through four steps: planning, implementation, monitoring and self-evaluation and improvement.
In order for the SEEMP to be effective, it is essential to have a performance baseline in place. Solutions, such as BMT’s Smart Power, record and collate real-time performance data, providing considerable improvements over the standard manual “noon” reporting process. By analysing good quality data, it is possible to break down the overall performance into individual components (engine, propeller, hull performance), identify where efficiency losses are being introduced into the system and react accordingly.
Maintenance can be optimised by moving away from fixed schedules to “condition-based” approaches. One of the first ships that deployed Smart Power technology had a hull-clean ahead of schedule, based on data indicating a worsening of hull performance. This resulted in a direct saving of approximately seven tonnes of fuel a day and associated reduced emissions. The system had only been on board for two months, so immediately ticked the “win-win” boxes in delivering environmental and commercial benefit.
Innovative ship design can also be harnessed to ensure “greener” operation. Regulatory requirements have often been based around limiting exhaust emissions for NOx, SOx and so on, per kilowatt used, and this has led to a focus on the use of cleaner diesel engines and/or exhaust treatment. To the naval architect, this does not provide any incentive or requirement to try and reduce the energy required to drive a ship with a certain payload at a given speed. However, future requirements are certain to see increased focus on emissions-indexing of ships, such as the recommendatory guidelines given in MEPC Circ 471. These guidelines put forward an index for the energy efficiency of a ship in terms of carbon emitted per unit of transport work and this type of future regulation will drive a need for more efficient ship design.
Success also depends on the buy-in of the crews using the new technology or deploying new working practices. When there are examples of two very similar ships running two very similar routes with very different performance, the only real variable is the crew. It is hardly surprising that operators are beginning to give their crews bonuses based on improvements in fuel consumption and related environmental aspects.
Simon Burnay is Director of the Shipping and Ports division of BMT Argoss
Click here to email the editor and comment on this story
Receive our FREE news email bulletin click here
- 13 − 15 March 2012
- 22 − 23rd March 2012
- 25th April 2012 for 12 weeks.
- 12 − 14 June 2012
