Wind propulsion for ships in 2010: why so few?

Etienne Gernez Det Norske Veritas etienne.gernez@dnv.com September 13, 2010

Contents
1 Abstract 2 Show stopper 1: Investments VS savings 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Performance prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There are fuel savings and fuel savings... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finding the most suitable trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Optimizing savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 2.4.2 Weather routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology optimizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 2 3 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7

3 Show stopper 2: Reliability and Safety 3.1 3.2 Risk analysis for Structural integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schedule integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Show stopper 3: Operating a sailing, commercial ship 4.1 4.2 4.3 Propulsion analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crew and automation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paper work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 Show stopper 4: Who benets from the savings? 6 Discussion 7 Conclusion References

8 8 8 9

1 Abstract
This paper is asking: with more than 30 years of wind propulsion projects for commercial shipping, why so few ships are actually sailing using wind energy? Four main industry show stoppers are examined, and some solutions presented in parallel, allowing to review existing research and reveal necessary developments on the topic.

2 Show stopper 1: Investments VS savings

Investments in new technologies need to be paid o quickly (5 years pay back period max, 2-3 years is best) and surely (low but stable fuel savings are preferred to high yet unpredictable savings).

2.1 Performance prediction

Kites: math models [Wellicome and Wilkinson, 1984, Kherian, 2006, Naaijen, 2006], experimentation [Dadd, 2005, Gernez, 2006], validation [Dadd et al., 2010] (for Zero mass model) [Schlaak et al., 2009] (for Skysails model). Others: CFD and experimentation. Goal: polar diagram, showing pulling force VS a AWA

2.2 There are fuel savings and fuel savings...

Expression of savings is always tricky...Resistance VS Sail force, Power comparisons, Fuel consumption, Instantaneous VS Average...Need to nd a common ground! In Naaijen1 [Naaijen, 2006]: "4.3. Results and discussion The theoretical fuel saving that can be achieved in the considered case is presented by the polar diagram in Fig. 14 for a towing line length of 150 m. The angular axis represents the true wind direction from the bow. The radial distance from the origin represents the fuel consumption as a percentage of the fuel consumption as it would be without using the kite. Figure 15 shows the force delivered by the kite in the direction of the forward speed as a percentage of the total resistance without kite for a towing line length of 150 m. One would expect this percentage to be higher than the relative fuel saving: "....yet it is not - propeller eciency... In Naaijen2 "2.4(a) Applying constant RPM results in a relative fuel saving [tons / hour] of only 4.1 %, corresponding to 11.8 % in [tons / mile]. When the ships speed is kept constant by decreasing the RPM, a relative fuel saving of 50.9 % can be achieved, as shown in Figure 15." In Gernez[Gernez, 2009]: "The savings are always expressed as: % saving = (value without sail value with sail) / value without sail The saving calculation is applied to the thrust and torque coecients, the brake power, and the fuel consumption. " Fujiwara Thrust benet (TB) introduced to measure the ability to reduce the engine delivered thrust at constant speed TB(%)= (Xp(nosail) - Xp (withsail)) / Xp(nosail) *100 Xp(nosail): mean value of the thrust force for the ship without the sails for all wind directions Xp(withsail): mean value of the thrust force when the sails are in operation, and the ship velocity maintained TB is equivalent to a mean reduction in eective horse power (EHP). Shlaak paragraph 4. Direct measure of fuel consumption with and without kite at constant speed 12kn in liter/hour > fuel reduction in l/h > conversion to a "saving in useable machine power" by using the eective fuel consumption 3

in liter/ kWh at same speed: DeltaPower= fuel reduction in l/h * (1/ eective fuel consumption in l/kWh) = equivalent machine power in kW > "The power supplied by the kite is directly eective, without any energy conversion losses. It is therefore not directly comparable to motor generated power." > conversion of kite force to kite power equivalent to motor power: kite force in N * wind speed in m/s * (1/ overall propulsive eciency) = kite power equivalent to motor power.

2.3 Finding the most suitable trade

The most suitable trade for wind propulsion has to be carefully selected. Wind atlases and performance predictions are here to help. Article Fair trade winds 28/04/2009: "Cargo ows are matched where possible with wind potential, for example departing from Europe by plotting a course south of the Azores to the Americas and returning across the Atlantic on a nort-northeast route." Route following "trade winds". Conrmed in Blackham in early days of weather routing for wind assisted ships. Simulation of ship performance with wind technology. Several levels: - full: manoeuvring (drift angle?), propulsion performance (propeller eciency), resistance (in calm water, added in waves), wind statistics Case studies: table with wind propulsion technology ship type, DWT route wind stats database sail prediction method range savings reference paper > Gernez: 80m2 kite, 5820 DWT shuttle tanker , 500 nm between Corsica and Malta, ARGOSS database, static kite ying model [Wellicome and Wilkinson, 1984, Kherian, 2006]; 5-7%,[Gernez, 2009] 4

> Naaijen1: 500m2 kite, 50 000 DWT tanker, no specic trade, BF 4-7, quasi-static [Naaijen, 2006], up to 50%, [Naaijen, 2006] > Naaijen 2: 400m2 kite, 44579 Bulk Carrier, New york to English Channel, NOAA, quasi-static, up to 50%,5 % in average on 1 voyage, published article? > Allemands: Bermuda rig (classic), Dyna Rig (German), Generic product tanker and Generic Bulk Carrier, Le Havre Miami, San Francisco Yokohama, Valparaiso Yokohama, ECMWF (which one?), wind tunnel testing (references given), up to 15%, article in german, not referenced...Try Google!! >Shlaak: Skysails 600m2, multipurpose freighter 10 000 DWT + Bulk Carrier 48 000 DWT + Tanker 32 000 DWT, all at 13 and 15knots, 15 routes worldwide, ERA 40 ECMWF, experimental calibration of theoritical model (see ref 6 and 7), 5% North Atlantic East-West 21% West-East. > Japonais: hybrid wing-sail, Bulk carrier, North Pacic, Ref 15 Watanabe et al, wind tunnel testing (references given), 10-15%,[Fujiwara et al., 2005] > Dadd: Nope! [Dadd et al., 2010] Conclusion: wide range of savings. Very dependant of sails characteristics (mostly area, L/D ratio but also line length, ying pattern,..for kites), wind characteristics, Ship SPEED (shlaak: 15 to 13 knots = +10%.) experimental or validated models available for kite static and dynamic, 3 germans types of rig, 1 japanese hybrid rig. "fully" coupled simulations: wind - sail - engine - rudder Only 1 study comparing dierent routes (Germans and Shlaak). Shlaak Figure 7: 15 routes Out and Home with Kite power, compared to importance of the route (% goods passing through). Optimal sailing conditions for each tech: upwind 120 deg (Kherian), slow ship (all!)!, Further research: Mapping tool, inspired from wind turbine site selection in the wind energy industry. Schlaak using wind masts measurements for more accurate wind stats.

2.4 Optimizing savings

2.4.1 Weather routing Once the trade is selected, weather routing systems can help to use the available wind as best as possible, the challenge being: how much the route can be changed to benet from more wind? Naaijen 2: isochrone method?? 3. Voyage simulation "Unfortunately the isochrone method appears to be not suitable for cases with no or very limited speed variation: all possible routes will diverge until the last isochrone resulting in an optimal route that is very unlikely to diverge from the minimum distance route. However, keeping in mind that the followed routes during the 30 simulations are possibly not the optimal ones, the results for the situation with and without kite and for constant speed and constant RPM are given in the next table." Blackham: no specic method given. Just describing the idea. References: [Blackham, 1985, Hagiwara and Spaans, 1987] + Naaijen2 and Germans Limitations: added safety concerns (more wind usually means more waves), added cost of routing services (weather forecasting service, data storage and transmission), and liability issues in case of incidents (what if the ship didnt move away from its normal route...?) 2.4.2 Technology optimizing Another way to optimize the savings is to optimize the technology itself. For kite propulsion, the kite ying patterns are an important component of the eciency of the overall system. The problem of nding kite trajectories maximizing the kite pulling force is a mathematical optimization and control problem studied for high altitude wind energy generation [Ilzhfer et al., 2007].

3 Show stopper 2: Reliability and Safety

What is the risk of using wind propulsion technologies? it is very much depending on the technology used 6

 risk for who? what kind of risk?

3.1 Risk analysis for Structural integrity

What are the possible failure modes of the technology? The associated causes and consequences? The available mitigation measures? Such an analysis is necessary to have a better understanding of a technology and the operational risk. The experience of Det Norske Veritas (DNV) in Risk Management has produced early reports laying out principles of design for wind propulsion technology [Wagner, 1981, Brett, 1984] as well as detailed risk analysis, identifying and ranking more than 100 causes of failure, preparing a solid ground for discussions with the technology supplier and vessel operator[Gernez, 2009].

3.2 Schedule integrity

As far as wind propulsion is only assistive, i.e not the main propulsion source, there is no reason not to maintain the contracted speed. At best, some fuel will be saved, at worst, no fuel will be saved, but in both cases the ship will arrive on time, once the structural integrity risk is cleared. In the case of wind as main propulsion, safety margins have to be included in the contracts. The French company Fair Trade Winds is chartering sailing vessels to ship wine from France to the Northern Europe market, signing contracts with wine importers allowing a three days margin in the delivery date. Reference: personal communication with Fair Trade Winds CEO.

4 Show stopper 3: Operating a sailing, commercial ship

Using additional technologies gives an additional complexity to the operation of the ship, for instance in terms of: propulsion: how to run the engine and the propeller with the extra power given by the sail? 7

 crew training: how automatic can the technology be and how much is left to the crew? paper work: what kind of authorizations are required to sail?

4.1 Propulsion analysis

The extra power given by the sail is modifying the operating zone of the ship propeller. [Molland and Hawksley, 1985] is discussing wether to use a Controllable Pitch Propeller or a Fixed Propeller with a gearbox in this case. The question of drift due to sail side forces is investigated in [Naaijen, 2006, Hudson et al., 2009].

4.2 Crew and automation

Automatization of sailing is one of the answers to the issues of added cost of extra crew and additional training required to operate a wind propulsion technology. Reference: personal communication with Associate Professor Jerome Jouroy from The Mads Clausen Institute, University of Southern Danmark.

4.3 Paper work

The fact that a handful of ships are using wind propulsion technologies in their daily operation shows that paper work for insurance and ship classication can be carried out! Reference: the testimony of one ship operator using a wind propulsion technology.

5 Show stopper 4: Who benets from the savings?

As fuel savings are the most important economic incentive to use wind propulsion, the questions of quantifying, documenting, reporting, and sharing the savings arise.

6 Discussion
Extensive research and increasing feedback from experience reveals that most of the show stoppers described in this paper should not be seen as such! So why so few wind propulsion ships in 2010? Going beyond the economic issue of oil prices variation, I would argue that it is more of a political issue in a context of environmental regulation strengthening and increased consumer demand for environmentally-friendly operations. In the cruising sector, environmental management policies are tighter than in merchant shipping (for instance in waste management), and end-customers are directly in contact with the ship operations (again as opposed to the long and complex supply chains where the end-customer usually does not know which shipping company is contracted and how it is operating). It is then probably not a surprise that some recent cruising projects are looking again into wind propulsion, for instance STX Europe and the EOSEAS project: wind propulsion here is not only seen as a mere fuel saving device, but is part of a long list of solutions to reduce the environmental impact of the ship operations, from waste heat recovery to waste water management, innovative hull design, etc..., as well as a marketing operation built on the golden souvenirs of luxurious, glamour sailing cruises.

7 Conclusion
What could lead the shipping industry to select wind propulsion as a feasible alternative? the entry into force of air emissions AND environmental management regulation. The IMO is working on it! the publication and sharing of existing experience in fuel savings from wind propulsion. But it in such an intense industry, would not that mean losing a competitive advantage?

 the development of partnerships between industry and research to benet from the experience and innovation gained in the last 30 years. Who is against that, at least in the research environment..?

References
[Blackham, 1985] Blackham, A. (1985). Weather routeing for wind assisted ships. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 19(1-3):205 213. [Brett, 1984] Brett, P. (1984). Principles of safe design of sail driven merchant vessels. Research Paper 81-P084, Det Norske Veritas. [Dadd, 2005] Dadd, G. M. (2005). Development, validation and demonstration of a test rig for kite performance. Masters thesis, University of Southampton, Ship Science department. [Dadd et al., 2010] Dadd, G. M., Hudson, D. A., and Shenoi, R. A. (2010). Comparison of two kite force models with experiment. Journal of Aircraft, 47(1):212 224. [Fujiwara et al., 2005] Fujiwara, T., Hearn, G. E., Kitamura, F., Ueno, M., and Minami, Y. (2005). Steady sailing performance of a hybrid-sail assisted bulk carrier. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 10:131146. [Gernez, 2006] Gernez, E. (2006). Experimental and numerical investigation of the performance of a kite. Masters thesis, University of Southampton, Ship Science department. [Gernez, 2009] Gernez, E. (2009). Risk, cost and benet of wind assisted propulsion for ship - the example of kite propulsion. Technical Report 2009-0634, Det Norske Veritas. [Hagiwara and Spaans, 1987] Hagiwara, H. and Spaans, J. A. (1987). Practical weather routing of sail-assisted motor vessels. The Journal of Navigation, 40(01):96119. 10

[Hudson et al., 2009] Hudson, D. A., Shenoi, R. A., Hirdaris, S. E., Dadd, G. M., and Chapman, T. (2009). Operational considerations of kite assisted merchant ship propulsion. In 2nd Annual ME ShipTech 2009 Conference. [Ilzhfer et al., 2007] Ilzhfer, A., Houska, B., and Diehl, M. (2007). Nonlinear mpc of kites under varying wind conditions for a new class of large-scale windpower generators. International Journal of Robustand NonlinearControl, 17:15901599. [Kherian, 2006] Kherian, J. G. (2006). Kite force prediction for ship propulsion. Masters thesis, University of Southampton, Ship Science department. [Molland and Hawksley, 1985] Molland, A. and Hawksley, G. (1985). An investigation of propeller performance and machinery applications in wind assisted ships. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 20(1-3):143 168. [Naaijen, 2006] Naaijen, P. (2006). On the power savings by an auxiliary kite propulsion system. International Shipbuilding Progress, 53(4):255279. [Schlaak et al., 2009] Schlaak, M., Kreutzer, R., and Elsner, R. (2009). Simulating possible savings of the skysails-system on international merchant ship eets. Trans RINA, International Journal of Maritime Engineering, 151(A4). [Wagner, 1981] Wagner, H. G. (1981). Ships with main propulsion by sail: General and main requirement for reeng of sails and turning of masts. Technical Report 81-0687, Det Norske Veritas. [Wellicome and Wilkinson, 1984] Wellicome, J. and Wilkinson, S. (1984). Ship Propulsion Kites - An Initial Study. Technical Report SSSU19, University of Southampton, Ship Sciences Department.

11