Ship Technology
- News Item: "Call for 'new thinking' to save on fuel costs" by Jorn Winkler
- Jon Watson
Razaghi Meyer International
GMT 12:03
15th Nov 2006http://www.sustainableshipping.com/news/2006/11/66104
""Environmental measures don't have to cost money," Winkler said.
This is a concept with some truth to it.
The Prague Statement and the Porter Hypothesis both support this view.
It declares: "Good environmental regulation helps reduce costs
for industry and business"
There is also the "Porter Hypothesis" (In a 1995 debate on the Porter Hypothesis—the idea that tougher
environmental standards can make companies more innovative and,
ultimately, more profitable—Porter and van der Linde [13] argue
that economists are locked into a “static mindset that environmentalism
is inevitably costly.”)
It is noticeable that at this time there are many approaches to lowering emissions that include the simple concept of better fuel efficiency.
For example, new hull coatings (Jotun?) route planning and reduced speed. The last is of perticular interest since tthe Port Of Los ANgeles has imposed a "voluntary" but arbitary speed limit. Now simply halving the speed could simply mean the vessel is in the area for twice as long and takes twice as long to produce the same amount of pollution and of course, since all vessels are there for longer, they collectively emit the same amount of pollution as before only now the shipping is more dense. However, there have been some impressive savings posted in the press in recent months, one of which suggests that by running at 12 knots, oil tankers could save as much as 50% of the fuel used.
Earlier studies by a Canadian Ferry company simply using accurate fuel flow measurements, showed as much as 10% fuel reductions but by simply throttling back a little bit and using the fuel efficicency information to learn how to take best advantage of the prevailing conditions. These systems are now commercially available providing whellhouse displays of real time fuel efficiency such that even a 1/4knot speed reduction can produce significant savings without significantly affecting operations (the data is logged automatically helping meet ISO 14000 objectives). In fact this idea has more recently been discussed by Tee Kay Shipping and others.
A brief search of the internet will reveal a number of such solutions including "FUSION" from Flow Technology Inc. which was originally aimed at offshore vessels but which is also suited to deep sea vessels.
But the sense of the article, and generally, is that the industry, save a few exceptions, seems reluctant to pursue these solutions. This was also, I believe, the sense from SEAaT, that the industry enthusiasm for any of the Market based mechanisms, especially as they could assist with scrubber technology, seems soemwhat absent. Market based mechanisms is not just emissions trading. It can include a whole range of financial incentives to encourage more efficient shipping and lowered emissions. Both the IMO and the EU (see the NERA report to the EU) are prepatred to consider market based mechanisms but where is the industry response? So by being more fuel efficienct, for example, not only would the vessel incur lower fuel costs but could also generate emissions credits to traade with less efficient vessels or gain lower port dues for example.
- Jon Watson
Razaghi Meyer International
GMT 12:05
15th Nov 2006PS here is the Porter Hypothesis.
To save anyone looking I can also post a link to the NERA report if requested. - Guy Wilson-Roberts
Petromedia Ltd (Canada)
GMT 21:40
13th Dec 2007
IP: x.x.88.148The interesting aspect is to ask why there is not more 'new thinking' or new old thinking to save on fuel costs.
The recent poll here suggested that shipowners may be waiting for the IMO to see what environmental regulations they will have to face first.
http://www.sustainableshipping.com/news/2007/12/70040
But even ahead of new regulations, isn't there money to be saved in the interim? - Jon Watson
Razaghi Meyer International
GMT 01:47
14th Dec 2007
IP: x.x.164.60Hmm.
The EU are reported (in the T&E newsletter) talking about a matter of a few months within which to see the IMO act before going unilateral and yet it seems that until now there has been little or no urgency within the industry even though the IMO Secretary General has warned about pushing ahead and the risks of Unilateral legislation.
Outside the industry they present the view that the IMO is only now addressing pollution and that the choice is between distillates only and scrubbing. neither is necessary to getting the SECAs operating properly and delivering some benefits. At 1.5% from an average of 2.6% that is a 43% reduction in SOX. Marine SOX is around 3% of atmospheric SOX and, according to a UK paper on PM2.5, about 1-2% of SOX inland. SO the SECAs should drop this to around 1%. This is no insignificant achievement, particularly as the majority of atmospheric SOX is natural.
When it comes to CO2 shipping accounts for around 3% of the global anthropogenic sulphur (that's caused by man's activities, not the grand total). This means that 3% could increase by between 1% and 17% if we follow the distillates route. What does the Sulphuric acid reaction produce from scrubbing? is the expectation that all shipping will fllow this route? I doubt it. The whole thrust of the SEAaT proposal is that this is only possible or affordable by some vessels and even then it depends on Emissions Trading (amongst the various market based options) to help subsidise the cost. One has to doubt the increase will be significant and especially not when compared to the total CO2 "burden".
But another problem is that MARPOL addresses COX NOX and SOX but all for different reasons, the environmentalists lump them all together.
So, what we have is a confusion of suggestions which appear to cause delays and uncertainties and with each new idea come a new set of objections and more time required for thinking. That is the real danger and it overlooks the achievements that MARPOl can and will and should already be delivering. Yet still we are awaiting the UK to implement its legislation and some other countries aswell. How will it be different with the EU's unilateral legislation?
Of course, the marine industry is like any other when it comes to spending money to make money. There is a serious reluctance to do so when they don't know what the future holds and while i have never understood it in any industry, it doesn't matter how much savings a course of action will result in, it still needs upfront money that never gets budgeted.
Of course, in any other industry there are subsidies and investment grants and somewhere to spend those carbon taxes. Does the marine industry see an? No, because it is to dispersed and of to little importance to any one country. - NEW THINKING. ENRJ International, Ltd. Manufactures a System
that can Elininate Sludge, Reduuce Emissions, Eliminate Effluent water discharge, Eliminate Slops,Reduce purifier operations and maintenance and reduce Fuel Consumption 2% to 5%. This System can reduce emissions sufficiently to eliminate the need for Ports suppling Shore Power.
Moreover, This system offers a ROI in less than one year. All of the above is a BONUS.
Details fuenished on request.
Contact: Dannie Hudson, Ph: 843-873-8332, Email: info@enrjintl.com
prague_statement-en.pdf
