ECO

is the word

PANOS ZACHARIADIS
Technical Director, ABCML Mechanical Engineer Naval Architect and Marine Engineer (MSE) __________________________________________________________________
MARINE COMMITTEE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

DELEGATION OF GREECE

SECRETARY - FOUNDING MEMBER

ECO
Ecological ? or

is the Word
Economical ?

What does Eco mean ?

There can be only one answer:

Both

ECO
Substance

is the Word

But the big challenge is to separate the From

Worthless Energy Ratings Or even worse: misleading

SHIP ENERGY RATINGS

EEDI Press Reaction

EEDI too is not an indication of Eco

EEDI
' M $' nME $ % 1 f j "% 0 PME ( i ) ! CFME ( i ) ! SFCME ( i ) " + (PAE ! CFAE ! SFCAE ) % " j =1 # & #& i =1 = f i ! Capacity ! Vref ! f w
neff M nPTI / , $ ' neff $ )' ) "CFAE ! SFCAE + ( % f ! P ( f ! P f ! P ! C ! SFC " .% 1 0 0 0 j PTI ( i ) eff ( i ) AEeff ( i ) eff ( i ) eff ( i ) FME ME % " % " ) ) i =1 i =1 & i =1 # & j =1 # * + f i ! Capacity ! Vref ! f w

It is a snapshot of theoretical performance at a rare condition (max load), in sea conditions that the ship will never encounter in her life (total calm, no wind, no wave).

Claims by yards of the form our ships EEDI is 15%, 20%, etc. below the required EEDI are no real indication of efficiency.

What is an Eco Ship ?

Appendages make small (if any) difference

By far the most important aspect is reduced resistance through the water This is achieved through better (refined) hull lines: In order of importance... 1. Bow 2. Stern 3. Rest of hull (Cb)

Some yards are totally redesigning their hull lines. Some, to avoid the trouble, use gimmicks (derated engines / appendages etc.)

not only in one condition (design) but at various speeds and various cargo and ballast conditions (reason Maersk changes their bows). Most Important aspects are .... 1. Hull form (by far) 2. Engine 3. Propeller

!"#$%$&!'("!'$"#)*(+,-.#)$

1. Bow

2. Stern / 3. Hull

Ducts / fins give ZERO improvement to well designed stern or hull

Modified bow saved 2.5 tons FO (7.5%)

Refined hull lines come at a penalty : Reduced deadweight. But this is insignificant.

The penalty was 300 mt

300 tons lost x $ 30 x 7 trips/year = ($ 63,000) loss 2.5 mt gain x $ 650 x 270 days = $ 439,000 / yr gain

2nd improvement applied: Larger Engine

Larger Engine
(truly operate at 75% MCR) Savings: Another 2.5 mt FO The penalty for larger Engine is on EEDI (Greece passed the DMCR at IMO) but still ... Who cares as long as ship complies with Regulation ?

SFOC A

Full MCR 11060 kw DMCR 9750 kw

Operating point A seems at 85% of MCR but it actually is at 75% of real MCR B would be the operating point with smaller engine (curve shifted left 1600 kw) Note effect of slight waves or slight hull fouling

SAVINGS (actual) Actual = B4, scantling draft, fouling, IFO, 14.5 knots ORIGINAL SPEC: 36.7 mt (56,000 dwt) NEW SPEC : 31.5 mt (58,000 dwt) Saving : 5.2 mt/day (15%) x $ 650 x 270 days =

$ 912,000 / yr
(or 4,350 tons less CO2 / yr)

Latest Design

/0123$4506$"7895:;<789$=8>65?=8@$A08$!8@=80$$
B87C9$ HI$ HM$ HMPQ$ )7D:16$E16619C$ HJ$ KK$ KQ$ /0123$E16619C$ KL$ KM$ KN$ '09=@8$'D1F$ KK$ KN$ KJ$ +1G$'D1F$ KI$

KO$ KR$

In general actual consumption 10% more than claimed

Careful when evaluating fuel performance of ECO designs

With new type slow RPM engines you dont get hot exhaust gases. So the economizer may not provide all the steam needed when under way. The boiler may need to be fired, eliminating the savings from the new engine.

What to look for, among others...

!! Dont accept yards consumption claims blindly (calculate it yourself comparing with previous design). !! Compare the NOR of offered design to the NOR of yards previous design at same speed. (This is an indication of reduced resistance = improved hull form). !! Be sceptical of claims of reductions from appendages. !! Ask for strict speed/consumption guarantee. The sea trial speed calculation method has been improved in owners favour (difficult for yard to play games). !! Ask for the TOTAL HFO (not MDO) consumption (include boiler and generators) in various speeds and cargo load conditions. BALLAST condition is very important.

Are current ECO designs Sustainable ?

!! Designed to burn Fossil fuel (either HFO or MDO/MGO) !! Soon Owners will be forced to chose a) MDO/MGO most of the time or b) Scrubbers or c) LNG !! Current designs not easily adaptable to b) or c) !! They are not Future Proof

At least one more tank needed. Redesign stern deck?

In a nutshell...
!! Current designs are correcting the gross hydrodynamic errors of the immediate past... !! Inspired from ...

! d e t n Pate

Before last word

COST OF NEW REGULATIONS TO SHIPPING: M. Morooka, ICS Chairman: Revised Estimate: $ 50 billion each year for the next 10 years.

Last word
"! Given todays overcapacity, if you order a vessel in this market you are insane. "! However, given the advantages of eco ships, if you want to stay in shipping you have to order because thats the future.

Harald Thorstein, Frontline Corporate Services "! Conclusion:

To stay in shipping ... you have to be insane.

Survey
View of Greece based senior class executives regarding Greek owners:
"! Already ordered eco-ships or aim to soon: 29%
"! Against ordering priority is market recovery: 12% "! Will order later after verifying performance of eco-ships: "! No ability to fund orders, so eco-ships do not apply:
Source: Lloyds List

28%

31%

Rediscovering our roots...

Rediscovering our roots...

Universal Shipbuilding discovered few years ago ...

! d e t n Pate

Owners didnt like it ... but bulbous bows make negligible difference in slow speed ships

Verification Problems
How to treat Energy saving devices (e.g. Air lubrication)

Japan proposal for verification: Turn it OFF and ON at sea trials Greece: Want actual operating feedback

P. ZACHARIADIS H.I.M.T. ANNUAL MEETING OF MARINE TECHNOLOGY 2012

PROPELLER !! Should be properly designed for the ship (not off-the-shelve) !! Lager diameter combined with larger engine operating at slower RPM can increase efficiency drastically