LR - Shipping & Environment

Shipping and the environment
An insightful look at the environmental issues that are affecting the shipping industry.
Issue 02 / Spring 2011
Contents
Scenarios and trends We may be 800 pound gorillas, but are we running out of bananas? Action now Shipping, the environment and politics Making the right decisions in a more complex world Researching tomorrows ship Furthering research through global collaboration Environmental roadmap Whats on the road ahead? A look ahead at forthcoming international legislation Weighing up your options Ballast water treatment Fuels and exhaust emissions The Energy Efficiency Design Index Inventory of Hazardous Materials Talk to us
03 06 10 13
410m kW
the installed power capacity of todays fleet
14
65,000
18 20 22 26 30 33 37
the estimated number of ships which will need ballast water treatment systems retrofitting
Credits
Staff photographer: Mat Curtis Editor: Becky Walton Marine Communications Manager: Nick Brown Design and production: Columns Design
There is no Planet B
Jos Mara Figueres CEO Concordia 21
Introduction
/01
Environmental issues remain at the top of the shipping agenda. Forthcoming legislation, rising fuel prices and customer expectations are all driving change in the industry. Companies are evaluating the investment decisions necessary to comply with regulation, to reduce their fuel bills and to meet their customers demands. All of these factors are linked and are shaping the development of todays shipping industry. It is clear that shippings impact on the environment is no longer an externalised factor in economic terms. Immediate priorities are MARPOL Annex VI and Ballast Water Management Convention compliance. However, a big unknown is the nature or timing of market-based measures that may put a price on carbon emissions which goes beyond the rising market price of fossil fuels. Ultimately, the adoption of cleaner practices and greener technologies will be influenced by the economic bottom line. At Lloyds Register, we understand that environmental stewardship is an obligation which the shipping community must meet. Owners and operators must also provide transparency, corporate responsibility and maintain profitability, all while operating safely. We have been at the forefront of environmental initiatives in the marine industry for many years, from world-renowned exhaust emissions research in the 1990s to involvement in the development of the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI). Today, we are helping with the evolution of new, more efficient ship designs and technologies. Our contribution to the development of marine regulations and standards gives us the expertise to help businesses understand and meet their obligations, while our independence allows us to give impartial advice. At the same time, our global research and development network equips us to deliver tailored solutions that enable businesses to operate more safely and sustainably.
Scenarios and trends
02/03
We may be 800 pound gorillas, but are we running out of bananas?

The importance of environmental cost-benefit analysis
Written by: Martin Stopford Director of Clarksons and Head of Clarkson Research
Million kW installed power
77.4
76.7
The challenge of over-developed energy use Since then wealthy humans have developed an astonishing appetite for energy. The Globalisation, climate change, and 1.2 billion people in the OECD consume escalating energy costs are a strategic about five tonnes of oil equivalent each per nightmare for shipping companies and year, while another six billion in non-OECD they all have one thing in common countries consume one tonne per capita. fossil fuels. Shipping companies need Given that a substantial proportion of the the right tools to navigate through the oil reserves have already been consumed; commercial and regulatory minefield that the major non-OECD countries aspire that lies ahead and the solution is not to consuming at OECD levels; and that just technical. Economic analysis has a there is a real possibility that fossil fuels are major part to play. changing the climate; there is every reason to be concerned about future energy For most of history human beings led supplies. a frugal and precarious existence. In 1800, Europe relied on horses and oxen (38 Figure 1 million of them) for more than half its energy; wood a quarter; water about 140 10%; manpower less than 5%; and the 1 th wind only 1% . Then in the late 19 120 century, machines burning coal turned the human race into 800 pound gorillas 100 and in the 20th century oil, a magic liquid packed with even more energy, turned us 80 into supermen. Suddenly we could fly.
139.0 121.2 60 40 20
The shipping industry, a major user of fossil fuels, is working on the problem. Todays fleet has an installed power capacity of 410 million kW (see Figure 1). That is 9% of world electricity generating capacity 2. Container ships are the most power hungry, with a capacity of 121 million kW, almost the size of Germany, followed by non cargo ships and bulkers with 77 million kW each; and tankers with 63 million kW. So its a big problem. >
63.3
36.2
21.4
German power stations
Bulker fleet
Tanker fleet
Containers fleet
Braudel (1981) Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century: Structures of Everyday Life v. 1 p. 371. The EIA gives a world installed electricity generating capacity of 4625 million kW in 2008.
German power stations
Shipping
Other specialised
Other dry fleet
Non cargo
Gas 14.4 fleet
Scenarios and trends Figure 2

400 Fuel cost saving, charter cost increase $000 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 Best speed at $200/tonne bunkers Best speed at $1,500/tonne bunkers Design speed Fuel cost Voyage Charter rate
Unit Design consumption Mt/day Knots $/Mt N. Miles $/day
Case 1 350 25 200 5,000 100,000
Case 2 350 25 1,500 5,000 100,000
Shows the effect on the cost of fuel (green lines) and the cost of shipping capacity (yellow line) of changing ship operating speed in 1 knot increments (based on a 5,000 mile voyage)
Speed of ship (knots)
Voyage fuel cost saving $550/tonne
Voyage fuel cost saving $1,550/tonne
Ship cost increase
The new IMO and ECA regulations concerning emissions above and below the water line will help to remove an anomaly under which the shipping industry dissipates the refinery industrys residual waste, while leaving unresolved the issue of whether the removal and disposal of sulphur and particular matter is better done on board ship or by the refining industry. But the challenge of reducing the carbon footprint remains unresolved because fuel conversion is already very efficient and there is no magic technology lurking on the sidelines. Gas is helpful (a 20% saving?), wind and sun are marginal and nuclear power at sea has potential but is still socially challenging.
The economics of bananas If technology is short of solutions, what about economics? Here I believe there are many more possibilities. Technology is about applying energy, but economics is about the decisions we make to extract value for consumers by making the most of it3. Put another way, there is no point in technologists labouring to conserve energy if consumers just squander the savings. Positive economics describes how market economies work but normative economics deals with how we ought to use economic resources.
Lets start with positive economics. How does the shipping industry deal with energy today? Basically its driven by the market. For example (simplifying enormously) the design speed of a ship is a trade off between the cost of fuel, the time cost of the ship itself, and the time value of cargo. If the ship costs $20,000 per day to charter and by spending an extra $20,000 on bunkers over the voyage you can save a day, its worth going faster, if only to speed up delivery for the shippers. We work out the optimum speed using todays bunker price and charter rates. An example is shown in Figure 2. If the ship costs $100,000 per day and bunkers cost $200 per tonne the optimum speed is about 22 knots. But if the bunker price goes up to $1,500 per tonne the optimum speed is about 11 knots4.
There is no point in technologists labouring to conserve energy if consumers just squander the savings.
Martin Stopford Clarksons
04/05
Is this the right way to make decisions? At todays $600 per tonne, running an 11,000 teu container ship with a 109,000 horsepower main engine and a cargo of 100,000 tonnes at 23 knots incurs daily bunker costs of $160,000. That sounds a lot, but it all depends how you look at it. At full speed this marine engine does the work of about three million 18th century men5. The cost per man day works out at five cents. Since in the West a man day of physical labour costs around $150, oil energy is still ridiculously cheap. And it gets better. The three million men needed to propel the 11,000 teu containership at 23 knots (if it were possible) would consume nine billion calories a day, not to mention needing a town the size of Greater Manchester to accommodate them!6 So thanks to oil, the 13 crew of the 11,000 teu ship have the captive energy of three million. The numbers are surreal, but that is what fossil fuels do for us. It is a precious resource, but it is dirt cheap. For a century, oil companies drilled a hole and out flowed millions of barrels of oil, so oil was plentiful and cheap, costing on average only $26 per barrel in 2009 dollars7. But that does not mean oil was only worth $26 a barrel. As I have argued the true value of oil is its opportunity cost. Is propelling 100,000 tonnes of cargo at 25 knots the best use of the finite reserves of this finite commodity? As Figure 2 shows, dropping the speed to 11 knots reduces consumption by about 80%. That only makes sense in terms of the positive economic model used in preparing Figure 2, if the price goes to $1,500 per tonne. But the positive economics model, which focuses only on the market price of oil, excludes so much the environment; the future price of oil; the true value of having the goods arrive a little earlier; and the future needs of mankind.
Costs, benefits and the true price of bananas So when designing environmentally friendly transport systems we should dust off old techniques like cost-benefit analysis. These would help to re-examine the value of time and to quantify costs and benefits not picked up by the market price. Carrying containers at 25 knots is like producing pineapples in Norway. You can do it but its a rich mans commodity. Markets are good, but so is common sense.
Martin Stopford, Director of Clarksons and Head of Clarkson Research
3 4
Economists refer to this as maximising utility. This short analysis ignores revenue, but is sufficient to illustrate the basic point. The curves are based on the cube rule which specifies a cubic relationship between speed and consumption for a diesel engine. This is not to suggest that individual engines can operate in the range shown in the graph.
This is based on a man generating 0.03-0.04 horsepower defined as raising 75kg to a height of 1 metre in 1 second (a horse produces about 27% to 57% of a HP). Figures from F Braudel (1981) Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century: Structures of Everyday Life v. 1 p. 337. This assumes 3,000 calories a day per man its hard work! Average spot price 1860 to 2000 based on prices in BP Annual Review of World Energy 2010 at 2009 prices.
Action now
We talk to three shipping companies with strong views on the environment and how to make sustainability pay
We talked to ship operators who are working with Lloyds Register to reduce and verify their environmental impact. A growing trend is the appointment to key positions of environmental experts to drive sustainable change in their business. Regulatory realities, market requirements and the bottom line are all driving these developments. All are looking to measure and reduce the environmental impact of their shipping operations. Zodiac: looking into the future today Controlling a large fleet of 147 bulk carriers, tankers, car carriers and containerships, Zodiac Maritime Agencies has much at stake in preparing the company for the future. Shipping will be a different business in 10 years time believes Mark Rawson, Zodiacs Quality, Safety & Environment Manager. We are working hard to make our company and its activities more sustainable we feel its the right thing to do and our customers are starting to demand a higher level of environmental performance that is independently verified.
Zodiac has set up a dedicated team to support a strategy of sustainability and the team has two main elements to its approach. Zodiac is planning to green its fleet through innovation. This is team leader Tonci Tadics area of expertise and main area of work. Tonci is now Director of Environmental Strategy with Zodiac, having previously been with Tanker Pacific (an affiliated company) in Singapore. He is looking at new technologies to improve performance. Scrubbers to remove exhaust emissions are at the top of the list of innovations. Environmental superintendent, and Naval Architect, Simon Turpin is working on projects to capture waste heat, and reduce sludge and other potential pollutants from the main engine. Simons relationships with technology companies and research institutes have led to the development and implementation of projects ranging from the difficulties involved in ballast water treatment to innovative new technologies such as harnessing renewable energy.
Customer service has always been very important and working with the charterers to find mutual benefits is another key area of activity. We try to align and prioritise our environmental projects with our customers. This is a win-win situation where we can all benefit, says Tonci. With most of the fleet employed on a time charter basis the charterer paying the bunker bill there is a clear drive to lower fuel consumption. These efficiency improvements also have an impact on reducing the carbon footprint across the supply chain. Zodiac has started a programme of Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator measurement and Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan development with Lloyds Registers Singapore office. This will help them manage and monitor individual ships fuel consumption and also develop in-house efficiency monitoring software. The impending cost of carbon emissions is an issue that they feel strongly about at Zodiac, and they are very much in favour of a levy or fund rather than an emission trading scheme. We believe very strongly in the principle of the polluter pays and a levy or fund scheme is the most effective way of achieving this. In a trading scheme, while the bunker costs remain with the time charterer, the carbon liabilities would fall on the owner. For our fleet, and many other ship owners this would be a huge problem, explains Mark.
People matter. A lot of our work will be about getting our people on board and ashore to make the right decisions and do the right things.
Mark Rawson Zodiac
06/07
The Zodiac team: Mark Rawson, Simon Turpin, Stephanie Moffatt and Tonci Tadic
Zodiac is also very enthusiastic about the commitment from senior management to a sustainable business strategy. Sustainability targets for environmental performance, safety, security and crew welfare are being developed for the medium and long term. Were focusing on data integrity and improving our data management systems internally, says Stephanie Moffatt, Environmental Executive at Zodiac. The provision of good quality data with increased transparency is an important part of our sustainability project. Zodiacs first publicly available Environmental Report will be available in spring 2011 and will be independently verified by the Lloyds Register Group.
Maersk Lines constant care for the environment and sustainable profits With tailor-made ships, advanced research into fuels and technology and a clear strategy, Maersk Line is looking to use green performance to put lots of water between it and the competition and create a more sustainable business model.
String of firsts With its 15,500 teu E-Class ships, Maersk Line found massive economy-of-scale benefits by developing big container ships. Now the company has taken the next step, developing an 18,000 teu behemoth. Recent further confirmed firsts for Maersk Line include CO2 verification conducted across the fleet, a bio-fuel project (verification and support in both projects are provided by the Lloyds Register Group) and an in-depth review of the potential for slow steaming to save fuel. The super slow steaming project managed to operate ships at loads well below levels recommended by main engine manufacturers to the extent that the engine makers have revised their guidelines. The resulting fuel savings have been substantial. >
Jacob Sterling, Head of Climate & the Environment at Maersk Line is now one of their most visible managers. He spent long periods in the jungles and plains of Borneo researching a biology MSc and, before joining Maersk Line, worked for WWF, Denmark for seven years, where one of his specialties was forestry. He is a central figure in leading Maersks efforts People matter, says Rawson, motivating to be more sustainable. them is crucial. A lot of our work will be about getting our people on board and We are preparing for a new reality in ashore to make the right decisions and the shipping markets, says Jacob. We do the right things. need to address environmental issues. Its the right thing to do but its not about philanthropy. At WWF I was fighting to save the planet. And I am still doing that at Maersk Line but here its about making sustainability pay.
The drive for new technologies Tomorrow is going to be a lot more complicated than today, says Jacob. The development of emissions regulation which differs from region to region is just one reason life will be more complicated. The introduction of Emission Control Areas (ECAs) with strict sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions limits is a key development driving immediate behavioural changes. But longer term it is reducing carbon that will become the real concern. Both have implications for Maersks operations. We always believed that a ship should be able to trade anywhere; that it would be able to slot into any service and be suitable for worldwide trading. Such an approach provides operational flexibility Maersk Line could deploy ships anywhere. That ability to trade worldwide, we feel, is going to be challenged as we continue to reduce emissions and make our fleet more efficient. Jacob Sterling, Head of Climate & the Environment, Maersk Line There will be interim solutions and interim stages of development for many new technologies such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) as fuel. Although a long way off, and even if liquefied natural gas is unlikely to be a major fuel replacement for heavy fuel oil, the sort of engine systems used with LNG in time might be suitable for biogases from renewables in the future. Commercially available gas from renewables is a long way off, but with a significantly lower carbon footprint than fossil fuel-sourced gas, low-carbon gas from renewables may be a desirable target. Environmental trend Maersks customers interest in environmental performance is growing. Jacob says: We have 10 to 20 customers we partner on environmental issues, and a growing number of key customers that are showing a genuine interest in our environmental profile and our initiatives to further improve it. But Maersk Line can help create demand for cleaner, greener, shipping. We think its a trend, not just window dressing, and were really going for it. Customers will want better performance from us and from our competition. We are ready to help them.
Katharine Palmer, BP Shipping Environment Manager. In April 2011, she joined Lloyds Register to head up the environmental product development team.
08/09
Maersk Lines HQ in Copenhagen may seem a long way from the wilds of Borneo and his forestry work at WWF but for Jacob Sterling the principles remain the same as he works for a more sustainable world. Maersk Line has put its cards and money on the table and Jacob Sterling is clearly making headway in helping his employer, and the industry, plant the seeds of a sustainable future for shipping. A full version of this article appears in Issue 2 of the Lloyds Register Group magazine, Insight. BP an open, honest approach When BP Shipping wanted to verify its environmental statement it contacted Lloyds Register. Katharine Palmer, BP Shipping Environment Manager, said: BP Shipping places great importance on its Environmental Statement and, for the business, it is important the report is an open and honest assessment of its operations for both employees and external stakeholders. It is also important the report complements BP Shippings ISO14001 environmental management system a certification which is also issued by the Lloyds Register Group. As part of the verification process, our team of Marine surveyors and Lloyds Register Quality Assurance (LRQA) auditors interviewed the key people involved in the statement, and reviewed the management processes and supporting documents. While BP Shipping could have sought verification from a non-industry organisation, our marine expertise and knowledge meant we were ideally placed to carry out the work.
Adding value with verification Lloyds Register audited the systems that Maersk Line uses to report, analyse and aggregate environmental data and undertook a ship audit of Maersk Clementine to confirm that the information in the ships records matched the data held by the shore office. During the Maersk Line audit, Mads Stensen, Maersk Lines Environmental Manager, said: As we had not previously had our fuel reporting systems and procedures independently assessed we did not know what to expect and what added value this verification would bring. While the verification did identify several areas for improvement, which have subsequently been rectified, it was also reassuring to have an independent expert review the systems and procedures that Maersk Line uses when making business decisions to optimise the efficiency of our operations.
Mads Stensen, Environmental Manager, Maersk Line
It was reassuring to have an independent expert review the systems and procedures that Maersk Line uses when making business decisions
Mads Stensen Maersk Line
Shipping, the environment and politics

The balance between political agendas and innovation
Shipping is a vital industry, but one that many connected with it feel is misunderstood. And there is no doubt that shipping is vulnerable to reactive policy making most notably in the past as a result of major oil spills. Some key figures feel that the industry could be doing more to influence political decision makers and agendas. One of the clearest agendas is the demand for shipping to reduce its environmental impact, and there has been an ongoing debate about ensuring the industry can make a speedy, appropriate and effective response.
The primary body for debating and developing the regulations that govern shipping is the International Maritime Organization (IMO). In recent years, the IMO has been concerned with global and local management of environmental issues such as air and water quality, and these have all been addressed most notably through MARPOL Annex VI regulating SOx, NOx and particulate matter and the Ballast Water Management Convention.
Beyond IMO, at the wider international level, the leading issue for shipping is its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which entered into force in 1994, led to legally binding carbon reduction goals for developed countries, under the Kyoto Protocol, from 2005. The Kyoto Protocols goals expire in 2012 and it is currently being renegotiated. Meetings of parties to both the Convention and the Protocol occur at least every year; the most recent were COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009 and COP 16 in Cancun in December 2010.
Shipping has a lot to offer Are we going to see the UNFCCC or IMO mandate an effective regime to reduce CO2 emissions from shipping? We will see. We believe shipowners need to take more direct control over their environmental performance and set robust and ambitious targets. One way could be to agree a new regime of voluntary targets in the shipping industry to drive CO2 reductions.
It would be great to see shipping take more control of its reputation. The industry has a lot to offer a future low-carbon global economy, but as long as it is unregulated, it risks being seen as a lagging sector. Regulation of CO2 emissions from shipping will hopefully come at some point. We dont know exactly when this will happen but when it does the industry needs a seat at the global table. We need influence to make it fair and to make it work as intended. We also need to accept that the political process isnt always fair it just isnt. But we will have much more influence if we act rather than talk.
Jacob Sterling Head of Climate & the Environment, Maersk Line
10/11
Vince Jenkins, Lloyds Registers Global Marine Risk Advisor, speaking at the Global Maritime Environmental Congress in Hamburg in September 2010
Shipping, despite much negotiation, has yet to be either directly or materially affected by the UNFCCC process. Although there are fears within the industry that IMO may lose control over the process, this looks unlikely. It remains to be seen what influence the UNFCCC will have on shipping. A bigger impact may be the eventual decision on how to finance the Cancun agreement of $100 billion a year for climate adaptation. If shipping is included in the funding, then IMO would be responsible for designing and managing any approach to the collection of the monies due from shipping. But other bodies have become increasingly important in the drive to influence environmental behaviour. We are now seeing the emergence of pressure from non-governmental organisations looking to encourage, stimulate or pressurise the shipping industry into change. For example, WWF, the Sustainable Shipping Initiative and the
World Ocean Council are organisations seeking to address the challenges and opportunities faced by shipping. Many in the industry are affected by these developments and the associated rise in demand for transparency and verification of performance at all levels. There is also the added pressure of non-regulatory compliance with customer requirements and preferences. In response, the shipping industry is embracing transparency. There are now many examples and areas of work. OCIMF has worked with the tanker sector through the Tanker Management & Self Assessment scheme (TMSA). The Clean Shipping Project and Clean Cargo Working Group and trade associations such as BIMCO and INTERTANKO to name a few are working on initiatives to promote and support more efficient shipping operations with a reduced environmental impact. There is an increase in the development of shipping-related indicators under
the Global Reporting Initiative, and availability of publicly accessible company environmental, stakeholder, CSR and sustainability reports. Although, in general, shipping has waited to be regulated rather than seizing the initiative at corporate or sector level, there is a new sense of urgency. For example, while most ships on order today will be little different to any ordered in the past ten years, the IMO is currently addressing issues of design efficiency. A tipping point may soon be reached as shippings ability to influence the timing and extent of changes is tested. Against this backdrop it is vital that the regulatory bodies understand the latest technologies.
12/13
Making the right decisions in a more complex world

Integrating people, process and technology
Written by: Ian Hamilton Technical Director, Human Engineering a member of the Lloyds Register Group Whether preventing accidents or designing more efficient ships, ensuring people make the right decisions at the right time is vital to improving the environmental performance of shipping. There are a number of threats to smooth ship operations. They include poor leadership and communications on board, weak company policies for competence management, and even the usability of the ships technology. The human factor These issues can all be addressed. The key is in understanding that everything that occurs on board a ship relies on a human in the loop system. Failures leading to, say, accidental marine pollution often arise when the technology and equipment is too complex or not designed for the task in hand. For example, in specialist operations such as lightering, the ships being used are often not specifically designed for such ship-to-ship operations. Its when compensating for the critical short-comings in design that ordinarily routine activities become a risk.
Badly designed procedures, meanwhile, can create unnecessary work, prompting the crew to ignore them or short circuit them. Company policies driven exclusively by commercial goals create the circumstances for low staff retention and overly rapid promotion, and will be likely to result in an erosion of crew competence. The consequence is a downward spiral in operational safety and performance. Balancing people, process and technology To make improvements, a shipping operator must decide on clear and simple goals for safety and pollution control, and then commit to implementing a performance management system that aligns with these goals. The solution is to have a balance of the right people, effective processes and usable technology. This demands a management focus on the interaction of the people, plant and process elements of the ship system. Human behaviour can be optimised by the design of fit-for-purpose technology and equipment. At the same time, the operational integrity of the ship can be assured by implementing measures to improve the management of performance by the ships staff.
The aspiration to control the influence on maritime safety and performance of human and organisational factors is not new. But the understanding of how this can be achieved has seen renewed focus in research and operational practices in recent years. The principles of how to achieve organisational and operational integrity are now well understood by many shipping organisations, and their successful practices are delivering improvements in operational efficiency, safety and pollution control. Looking to the future This insight has been focused at an operational level but will be vital for future design, technology and operational behaviour in shipping as the industry searches for operational efficiencies and better environmental performance. For example, propulsion technologies and fuels have not changed significantly for decades. As the world does not seem likely to curb economic growth, we can expect to see the world fleet continuing to expand. But demands for less polluting ships will see the introduction of new rules and new technologies, both of which will enforce changes in crew competence and the work on board. Finding efficiencies in the supply chain, at operational levels and in new designs and technologies, will have to be achieved by humans in a world of growing complexity. If that sounds challenging it is. But we do have a greater understanding of what drives people; and how to help them make better decisions to create better systems.
Researching tomorrows ship
Furthering research through global collaboration

A look at four Lloyds Register research projects
At Lloyds Register, we share our clients long-term vision for a greener industry and we are working alongside them to develop our understanding of the newest environmental technologies for ships. Working together this way enables us to benefit from each others expertise, build stronger relationships and capitalise on the best in environmental thinking.
Green bulk carrier project yields big energy savings In October 2010, we successfully completed our green bulk carrier joint industry project with Shanghais Bestway Marine Engineering Co. Ltd. The project brief was to develop an environmentally friendly 35,000 dwt bulk carrier design which had to comply with the requirements of the Common Structural Rules as well as meet the requirements of future environmental legislation. A range of design features was investigated, including: hull line optimisation energy saving devices such as wake adaptable propellers new IMO-approved marine antifouling coatings improved machinery and systems designs.
One of the benchmarks for the design was the IMOs Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI). By adopting the proposed energy saving and emission reduction measures, the EEDI value of the resulting Emerald design was shown to be 18% lower than that of the original ship. And the design exceeded the targets for fuel reduction, with consumption reduced by 19.5% against the target of 15%. The improvements also included a 3-5% energy efficiency gain due to the optimisation of the aft and forward parts of the ships hull, and efficiency improvements of up to 11% because of the improved propeller design, the selected engine and the incorporation of energysaving devices. The project demonstrated and strengthened our relationship with Bestway. It is an excellent example of effective co-operation between a local design company and a leading classification society, said Prof. Liu Nan, Bestway Chairman and General Manager. >
18%
Model testing being carried out by Bestway, Shanghai, for the green bulk carrier project
the EEDI reduction achieved through the green bulk carrier project
14/15
68MW
the thermal power output of a small modular reactor (SMR)

Exploring the nuclear ships of the future In Greece, we have been working with owner Enterprises Shipping and Trading (EST) in a bid to develop the first nuclearpowered merchant tanker. Nuclear propulsion is already a well established technology on naval ships and ice breakers, but this project is focusing on an aspect of nuclear technology that has so far escaped attention in the commercial sector small modular reactors (SMRs). These are small nuclear reactors that are compact, modular, safe and proliferation free. They are being developed to be used on board ships as a plug-in nuclear battery. Each one has a thermal power output of over 68 megawatts.
1.00% m/m
*by mass
the current maximum fuel sulphur content limit within ECAs
The project is investigating the potential for using SMRs for ship propulsion. As well as EST, the work involves Hyperion Power Generation, a leading SMR producer, and BMT Nigel Gee, a leading ship designer. Specifically, the project is: investigating the implications of using SMRs on board tankers developing rules and procedures for the design, construction, operation, maintenance and eventual disposal of tankers using SMRs developing commercially viable concept designs of conventional and modular tanker designs which incorporate an SMR. Special attention is being paid to lifecycle cost analysis, as well as hull-form design and structural layout, including grounding and collision protection.
Focusing on the options for ECA compliance In Denmark, as part of the Green Ship of the Future partnership we are working with shipowners (A. P. Mller Maersk A/S and D/S NORDEN) and manufacturers (MAN Diesel and Aalborg Industries) to research exhaust emission control options for existing ships. The project is aimed at helping existing ships comply with the increasingly demanding sulphur controls in Emission Control Areas (ECAs). Equivalent means of compliance are allowed and consequently a total of three technologies and methods will be installed and tested on board a 38,500 dwt D/S NORDEN tanker scrubber technology, LNG as a fuel and low-sulphur fuels or distillates. Besides evaluating each technology, the study will also investigate cost, installation and maintenance aspects. The resulting information will be used to help shipowners make decisions on the best way to control emissions in their own fleets. Investigating bio-fuels In Europe, we are working with companies including A.P. Mller Maersk A/S and Shell to research the advantages and shortcomings of the bio-fuel FAME (fatty acid methyl esters) when used in marine diesel engines. Driven by experience from the automotive industry, the project will help us better understand the potential for reducing greenhouse gas and SOx emissions from shipping to meet EU Directive requirements.
The nuclear ship project signing ceremony: l-r, Theodosis Stamatellos and Spyros Hirdaris (Lloyds Register), Phil Thomson (BMT), Apostolos Poulovassilis (EMEA Regional Marine Manager, Lloyds Register), Dale Ploughman (Seanergy), Katia Restis and Moli Restis (EST), George Sarris (Director of EST) and Richard Sadler (CEO, Lloyds Register)
16/17
Felixstowe
Bremerhaven Rotterdam Zeebrugge
Algeciras
Aqaba
Jeddah Jebel Ali
Pipavav
Jawaharlal Nehru
Maersk Kalmars route between Europe and India
The project is investigating how FAME and marine gas oil (MGO) blends behave in marine conditions and how they affect engine performance and emissions. It is focusing on the fuels limitations and how they might be overcome. Tests have included running an auxiliary engine under different climate conditions with different blends, and storing FAME and FAME/gas oil blends on board a Maersk Line vessel, Maersk Kalmar, operating between Europe and India. Selected parameters have been regularly measured throughout. One of the aims of the tests is to establish the degree to which issues experienced by the automotive industry in the use of FAME will be duplicated on board ship, in particular those related to storage stability, handling and its subsequent use in the engine.
Exploring the behaviour of our engines and storage tanks and knowing the change in air emissions by using FAME blends on board will give us valuable knowledge of the opportunities and challenges, says Lasse Kragh Andersen, Senior Environmental Specialist in Maersk Maritime Technology. The engine tests were completed in November 2010 and the data is currently being evaluated. The storage of blends is still ongoing. The intention is that the results of the study will make a significant contribution to the development of guidelines for the use of bio-diesel on ships. For more information on our research activities, please email SRG@lr.org
The Maersk Line vessel, Maersk Kalmar, is being used to investigate how biofuels affect engine performance and emissions
Environmental roadmap
Whats on the road ahead? Our roadmap looks at forthcoming international legislation
Since the 1970s, the answers to the environmental questions facing the maritime world have been spearheaded by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the body which regulates shipping through international consensus.
During this time, the IMO has successfully adopted a number of international treaties, such as the MARPOL Convention with its six Annexes, the Anti-fouling Systems Convention and the Ballast Water Management Convention. The majority of these are in force today and contributing to the protection of the environment both in water and in air, while others are on a steady course towards ratification. In fact, 21 of the 51 IMO Conventions relate to environmental issues. Our environmental roadmap outlines the key existing and forthcoming environmental legislation from the IMO up to the end of 2017, identifying future compliance dates and emerging regulations. While we are only looking at international legislation here, there are of course many national and regional requirements affecting owners and operators, such as EU Directives, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations and other local or portspecific requirements.
1948
the year the IMO was established
Environmental roadmap (overleaf)
18/19
< See the environmental roadmap overleaf
Need the roadmap for a presentation? You can download a digital version from here: www.lr.org/sate
Environmental roadmap 2011

Jan Apr Jul Sep
2012
Jan Apr Jul Sep
2013
Jan Apr Jul Sep
2014
Jan Apr Jul Sep
2015
Jan Apr Jul Sep
2016
Jan Apr Jul Sep
2017
Jan Apr Jul Sep
Anti-Fouling Systems Convention
Entered into force September 2008.
Bio-fouling Guidelines
Voluntary bio-fouling guidelines are likely in July 2011
Ballast Water Management Convention
Possible entry into force: 2012-2013
MARPOL Convention Annex I: Oil

Prohibition of the use and carriage of heavy grade oil in the Antarctic Sea will come into force August 1, 2011 New chapter on ship-to-ship oil transfer operation (STS Plan) and clearer definition of tanks (regulation 1) entered into force January 1, 2011
Annex III: Prevention of pollution by harmful substances in packaged form Annex IV: Prevention of pollution by sewage from ships Annex V: Prevention of pollution by garbage from ships
Amendments to Annex III (including IMDG Code becoming mandatory under MARPOL) entered into force on January 1, 2010 New special sewage control area for the Baltic Sea expected to be established January 1, 2013 New Annex V special area to be introduced for wider Caribbean region on May 1, 2011 Revised Annex V expected to enter into force in 2013
Annex VI: Prevention of air pollution from ships New ECA-SOX Controls inside ECA-SOX Controls outside ECA-SOX Alternative equivalent SOX controls NOX controls new construction ECA-NOX NOX controls ships constructed January 1, 1990 December 31, 1999 ODS Record Book VOC Management Plan Bio-fuels Guidelines
Revised Annex VI entered into force July 1, 2010
US Caribbean ECA proposed to come into force December 2013 North American ECA-SOx will come into force August 1, 2012
Maximum sulphur content limit reduced to 1.00% m/m on July 1, 2010 Maximum sulphur content limit reduces to 3.50% m/m on January 1, 2012 Exhaust gas cleaning systems have been able to be approved for use inside and outside ECA-SOx since July 1, 2010 Tier II controls came into effect from January 1, 2011
Maximum sulphur content limit reduces to 0.10% m/m on January 1, 2015
Tier III controls come into effect from January 1, 2016 North American ECA-NOX will come into effect in 2016
First approved method became available in October 2010 ODS Record Book has been required since July 1, 2010 VOC Management Plans have been required since July 1, 2010 Updated Guidelines on the carriage of bio-fuel blends now expected July 1, 2011
Ship Recycling Convention Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) GHG market-based measures
Key effective/compliance dates. Length of bar does not indicate time-scale EEDI guidelines may already be used on a voluntary basis EEOI guidelines may already be used on a voluntary basis SEEMP guidelines may already be used on a voluntary basis Discussions ongoing at the IMO
Entry into force is now expected between 2013 and 2015
EEDI could become mandatory on January 1, 2013
SEEMP could become mandatory on January 1, 2013
20/21
Weighing up your options

As a shipping company, you will be facing a number of decisions about how to comply with forthcoming legislation. You may be wondering what method to use to meet Annex VI exhaust emissions controls, or which treatment system to purchase in order to comply with the Ballast Water Management Convention. Or looking to the future, you may be wondering how to optimise your ships design to gain a good Energy Efficiency Design Index rating. In all these cases, there is no single answer. The solution thats right for you will be shaped by the particular needs of your business and your assets. In the following pages, we look at the issues that will influence your decisions and your options to achieve compliance. >
Ballast water treatment
Ten steps to selecting a ballast water treatment system

What you need to know
The Ballast Water Management Convention could be in force as early as 2012. If you have existing ships, you should be planning for retrofitting a ballast water treatment system (BWTS) now. The good news is that there are a number already available. But how do you decide which one is right for you? Here are our top ten things to consider when selecting a BWTS. 01 Is it approved? To install a BWTS on board your ship, it must be type approved by the flag administration or a Recognised Organisation in accordance with the relevant IMO Guidelines*. If the system uses an active substance, this will need to have received final approval from the IMO before type approval can be granted. 02 Does it have enough capacity? All BWTS have a total capacity rate (TCR). This indicates how many cubic metres of ballast water the system can process each hour. You will need to choose a system with a TCR high enough to handle your ships ballast capacity and operational pumping rate.
03 Is it gas safe? If your ship is a tanker, and the system is going to be installed in a gas dangerous area (i.e., in the cargo area), your system must be certified gas safe. 04 How much space does it need? System footprints range from approximately 0.25 m2 to 145 m2, depending on their TCR. Some are single units while others can be installed as separate components. This may be useful if you do not have a single space on board ship which is big enough or if access for bringing a single system on board is difficult. 05 What are the capital and operating costs? A BWTS is a big investment and could cost as much as $2,000,000 depending on the manufacturer. As for operating cost, it depends on the type of system and starts from as little as a few dollars per 1,000 m3 of treated water. Many system suppliers quote operating costs below $20 per 1,000 m3.
06 Do you have enough power available to run the system? Some systems have very high power requirements as much as 220kW per 1,000 m3 of treated water. You should check whether you will need to run another generator when the system is in operation or even install an additional generator set. Another consideration is whether you have a spare breaker available in the electrical distribution board to provide power to the BWTS. If not, you will need to find an alternative solution. 07 Will it integrate with your existing systems? It is advantageous to integrate the alarms and controls for the treatment system with those for the ballast pumping system, so that both can be operated from all control panels. 08 Are consumables, spares and servicing support readily available? It is important to be able to keep your BWTS operational. If it stops working, you will be in contravention of the Convention and could face fines or detention. Check that spares, consumables and servicing are readily available in all the areas where your ship is trading.
*These are contained in Resolution MEPC.174 (58) Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (G8)
22/23
Legislation: The Ballast Water Management Convention

The Ballast Water Convention has been developed to regulate discharges of ballast water and reduce the risk of introducing non-native species. Once in force, it will require ballast water treatment to be used in place of ballast water exchange. This requirement will be phased in according to the timescales shown in the table below, and is based on ships year of construction. 13 treatment systems are fully approved* and more are expected.
*As of 24 January 2011
Graham Greensmith, Lloyds Registers Ballast Water Management Specialist. He has been involved in the development of several of the Ballast Water Management Convention guidelines
09 What are the implications for crew training? Whatever BWTS youre considering, training will be required on operating and maintaining the system, and health and safety aspects such as chemical handling. Training requirements will need to be included in the ballast water management plan required by the Convention. 10 How might it affect tank structure and coatings? Corrosion and coating degeneration are two potential effects that system substances and processes may have on tanks. You should get assurance from the system manufacturer that tanks will not be adversely affected. For more information about selecting treatment systems, visit www.lr.org/bwm
Ballast capacity
Year of ship construction Before 2009* 2009+ BWT only 2009-2011 2012+
< 1,500 m3
BWE or BWT until 2016; BWT only from 2016
1,500 5,000 m3 > 5,000 m3
BWE or BWT BWT only until 2014; BWT only from 2014 BWE or BWT until 2016 BWT only from 2016 BWE or BWT BWT only until 2016; BWT only from 2016
*These ships need to comply at the first intermediate or renewal survey after the anniversary of the date of delivery in the year of compliance. BWE ballast water exchange BWT ballast water treatment
the estimated number of retrofits which will need to be carried out per day*
A Chinese Mitten Crab, one of many invasive species thought to have been introduced in ships ballast water
*At the expected peak year for retrofits; 2014.
20
Case study: Retrofitting: the owners experience

Swedish shipping company, Wallenius, installs ballast water treatment systems on all its newbuilds and has already retrofitted systems on three of its existing ships (the first in 2006). The company has planned ahead for installation on its entire fleet. Lloyds Register is surveying the installation process in accordance with the applicable IMO Guidelines and Rules. Wallenius first became aware of the environmental problems associated with ballast water in the late 1990s and decided to find a suitable solution. After sourcing the right expertise, they developed a system which was tested in early 2000. Wallenius then partnered with manufacturer Alfa Laval who in late 2006 were able to launch the worlds first chemical-free ballast water treatment system: PureBallast. For Per Tunell, Head of Environmental Management at Wallenius, this early and proactive involvement with ballast water treatment is simply part of the companys ethos. He says: We are a family-owned business, very engaged in sustainability issues. It is one of our principles to be well ahead of rules and regulations that concern environmental protection. Planning is a crucial aspect of retrofitting and Wallenius prepares very carefully so that ships are not taken out of service. Instead, they are retrofitted in five stages, in line with their normal schedule. The first stage takes place at the ships scheduled drydocking and consists of initial preparation work. The next four stages are timed to coincide with the ships scheduled arrivals back in Europe every few months. The whole process takes up to one year. Per explains why Wallenius adopts this approach: Besides avoiding downtime, carrying out installation at the ships scheduled stops in Europe avoids travel costs for the company fitting the system and makes it easier for us to be involved and maintain a good level of co-operation. And even though it is practically possible to carry out the initial ballast pipe preparations when the vessel is in the water, we prefer doing it in drydock to reduce the risks. Aside from the need for careful scheduling, Wallenius have learned a great deal from their retrofitting experiences and can pinpoint several challenges and considerations. Crucially, they have learned that space and power requirements must be established very early in the process. Finding room for a system can be difficult and may involve moving spare equipment, cutting through steel work or even modifying tanks. The electrical load balance must also be checked at the planning stage.
Wallenius: the five stages of retrofitting 1. Scheduled drydocking: ballast and cooling water piping and the electrical power supply are prepared, and space for the system is cleared. 2. First scheduled visit to Europe: the treatment system equipment is brought on board. 3. Second visit: the treatment system is connected to the piping. 4. Third visit: electrical cabling and control panel work is done. 5. Fourth visit: commissioning and crew training are carried out. The Wallenius Lines vessel, Faust. She will have a treatment system installed during 2011. Her sister ships, Fidelio and Fedora, have already been retrofitted. PureBallast, the treatment system being installed on the Wallenius fleet
24/25
Planning for installation getting the timing right

Another key learning point has been the advantage of locating control equipment in the same places on board their ships. This makes it easier to install the system and for crews to operate it when switching between vessels. Finally, they have found that it is vitally important to have a reliable company doing the installation work. Per says: They need to know the system thoroughly and it takes time to come to this level of understanding. Once you have selected your system, the next step is installation. You will need to decide if you are going to fit the system at sea or in drydock. If the latter, you may want to combine the retrofitting with a scheduled drydocking. Whether you can will depend on your survey schedule and how it aligns with the Convention compliance dates. You will also need to make sure the system can be delivered by your preferred time. In the examples below, the two ships had their keels laid before 2009. Ship 1 has a ballast water capacity of greater than 5,000 m3 and ship 2 has a capacity of less than 5,000 m3 but more than 1,500 m3. To comply with the Convention, ship 1 must install a ballast water treatment system by the first intermediate or renewal survey* which occurs after the anniversary of the ships delivery date in 2016. Ship 2 must install a ballast water treatment system by the first intermediate or renewal survey* which occurs after the anniversary of the ships delivery date in 2014. If the owners wish to retrofit during scheduled drydocking (at renewal survey), ship 1 will need to retrofit in 2015 and ship 2 will need to retrofit in 2011.
*whichever occurs earlier
It is one of our principles to be well ahead of rules and regulations that concern environmental protection.
Per Tunell Head of Environmental Management at Wallenius
Ship 1 Ballast water capacity > 5,000 m3, keel laid before 2009 = compliance in 2016 2015
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
Ship 2 Ballast water capacity < 5,000 m3 but > 1,500 m3, keel laid before 2009 = compliance in 2014 2011
Per Tunell, Head of Environmental Management at Wallenius
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
I Intermediate survey R Renewal survey
2016
Year of compliance
Fuels and exhaust emissions
Air pollution prevention compliance in a changing world

The fuel and technology options for new and existing ships
2010 saw a number of significant steps to prevent air pollution from ships: in January the European Unions at berth requirements came into force; in March the North American Emission Control Area (NAECA) was adopted; in July the revised MARPOL Annex VI, together with the associated NOx Technical Code 2008, entered into force; and in October the first NOx approved method was announced.
For decades, fuel oils from petroleum refining have effectively been the only source of power for shipping, and the recent Annex VI fuel sulphur limits have largely been met within the existing structures and technical operating arrangements of the shipping industry.
But complying with the fuel sulphur reduction to 0.10% inside SOx Emission Control Areas from 2015, and to 0.50% outside these areas from 2020, will require change, through the use of While the at berth requirements were the distillate or alternative fuel oils, LNG or final stage of EU measures introduced in gas-cleaning technologies (scrubbers). 2005, the revised MARPOL Annex VI, of In a world where there is already which the NAECA and approved method considerable pressure on distillates, are a part, represents the start of an and LNG is generally only a real option extensive programme of controls, for newbuilds, compliance will not come stretching over the next decade, intended cheap and, in the case of distillates, the to substantially reduce air pollution from shipping industry will need to compete ships: specifically sulphur oxides (SOx), with other consumers. which include some particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions.
The impact of the Annex VI SOx controls will also vary depending on whether a ship is operating in or outside an Emission Control Area. The North American ECA, extending up to 200 miles offshore, will come into effect in August 2012, greatly expanding the global area covered by ECAs and increasing the associated quantities of controlled fuel oils. As for NOx ECAs, these will only affect ships constructed on or after January 1, 2016. Currently, the North American area will be the only NOx ECA. We must expect that further Emission Control Areas both for SOx or NOx will be added over time. Indeed, a US Caribbean ECA, covering both SOx and NOx emissions, is currently being considered by the IMO. For both newbuilds and existing ships, one thing is clear; Annex VI has established a new paradigm. While in the past there was a general consensus as to the compliance routes to be adopted, there will now be a number of combinations of solutions that are either ship-specific or dictated by geography and trade.
...globalisation remains bound to routines that were developed by seafarers to master the Oceanic experiment. After 500 years of such practice, the time has come to re-assess these established routines and rethink the conditions of the experiment as a whole.
Prof. Dr. Peter Sloterdijk Professor of Philosophy and Media Theory, Karlsruhe, speaking at GMEC 2010
26/27
Legislation: Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention

MARPOL Annex VI sets limits on NOx and SOx emissions. Under the Annex, Emission Control Areas (ECAs) can be established. These may be set up to control NOx or SOx emissions, or both. There are currently two SOx ECAs in force the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. A third, the North American ECA, will come into effect on August 1, 2012 and will control both SOx and NOx emissions. NOx emissions NOx requirements apply only to installed diesel engines over 130 kW. The different tiers of control are based on ship construction date, with the limit value determined on the basis of engine rated speed. However, in the case of additional or non-identical replacement engines the applicable Tier is set by the installation date. Tier III limits apply only inside NOx Emission Control Areas.
Tier Ship construction date on or after January 1 2000 January 1 2011 January 1 2016* Total weighted cycle emission limit (g/kWh) n = engines rated speed (rpm) n < 130 17.0 14.4 3.4 n = 1301999 n 2000 45.n-0.2 44.n-0.23 9.n-0.2 9.8 7.7 2.0
Andy Wright, Lloyds Registers Fuel and Emissions Specialist
Here, we look at the options for newbuilds and existing ships. Newbuilds NOx For the current round of newbuilds, the situation regarding NOx emissions remains quite straightforward. The Tier II limits will continue to be met in principle by using the same in-engine, non-consuming methods that have successfully been used since 2000 for Tier I compliance albeit, applied with a slightly higher level of severity. SOx Where options do exist, they lie in deciding what route to follow to comply with the future SOx reductions inside and outside Emission Control Areas. The question is whether the means of compliance, or at least the necessary installation arrangements, are incorporated at construction. Fuel oil choices In terms of fuel, the current alternatives to relying on distillate fuel oil are a switch to gas, in most cases in the form of LNG, either totally or in dual fuel applications, or to non-petroleum based fuels, although there are considerable issues regarding the availability and use of first generation bio-diesels in marine applications. Ongoing research will undoubtedly identify other options, including renewables, which may be applicable in either fairly general terms >
I II III
* Depending on the outcome of a review (to be concluded in 2013) as to the availability of the required technology, this date could be deferred.
Existing engines over 5MW, of 90 litres and above per cylinder, installed on ships constructed between January 1, 1990 and December 31,1999 are required to limit NOx emissions to levels equivalent to Tier I if a so-called approved method for NOx emission control is commercially available. SOx and particulate matter emissions Annex VI controls SOx and particulate matter emissions by limiting the maximum allowable sulphur content of fuel oil used both inside and outside SOx Emission Control Areas. Compliance using alternative means such as exhaust gas cleaning systems is also allowed.
Fuel oil sulphur limits outside SOX and particulate matter ECAs 4.50% m/m before January 1, 2012 3.50% m/m on and after January 1, 2012 0.50% m/m on and after January 1, 2020* Fuel oil sulphur limits inside SOX and particulate matter ECAs 1.50% m/m before July 1, 2010 1.00% m/m on and after July 1, 2010 0.10% m/m on and after January 1, 2015
* Depending on the outcome of a review (to be concluded in 2018) as to the availability of the required fuel oil, this date could be deferred to January 1, 2025.
or in specific niche applications. Related to this is work within IMO on the wider acceptance of using low flash point fuels within duly designed machinery spaces, which would open the door to a range of other manufactured fuel types. Underpinning this research is fuel economy, not just of the engine but of the ship as a whole. Whichever fuel option is taken, minimising fuel demand from the design stage onwards must be seen as an essential prerequisite for coping with the future. Gas cleaning systems Exhaust gas cleaning systems offer another range of options, since Annex VI allows such arrangements to be used to achieve SOx compliance both inside and outside Emission Control Areas. This option allows the ongoing use of residual fuel oils since the maximum fuel oil sulphur limit is that certified for the system. Opting for a gas cleaning system opens up a number of possibilities, from the range of equipment currently on the market to the question of whether to fit now or to make the provisions which will facilitate fitting in the future. While deferment can initially appear attractive, fitting at newbuild ensures readiness from the outset and flexibility; only with a ship fitted with exhaust gas cleaning systems will you have a choice when the time comes. Existing ships NOx For those ships fitted with NOx certified engines currently about 50% of the world fleet the key issue is to remain within the bounds set by that certification. For those using the Parameter Check method, replacement NOx critical components must be marked up as required, Record Books of Engine Parameters must be completed, even for like-for-like changes, and these and the approved Technical Files must be on board and available for inspection.
For these ships there is, however, the alternative option of demonstrating compliance using the Direct Measurement and Monitoring method. Although this still requires a Technical File together with an approved system, it potentially allows much greater flexibility over the sourcing of NOx critical components and the engine settings which are adopted, since the engine itself is reduced to a black box with fuel oil and air coming in and power and exhaust gases going out. Although ships built before 2000 were initially outside the NOx certification requirement, except where certain replacement engines were installed, the introduction of the approved method concept has changed this for engines over 5MW and of 90 litre/cylinder or more displacement on ships constructed on or after January 1, 1990, but before January 1, 2000. In these instances, if an approved method exists it is required to be fitted within a given time period. Owners of such ships need to remain vigilant for announcements from the IMO as to their availability. One NOx certification issue common to all existing ships is the requirement in the revised Annex concerning any nonidentical replacement or additional engines installed on board. All such engines are now required to be certified to the Tier applicable to their date of installation, currently Tier II, irrespective of the keel laying date of the ship itself.
SOx For existing ships the future, in terms of SOx emission controls, has some parallels with the future for newbuilds, but the options will be restricted by the existing fuel oil bunker tank arrangements and machinery systems, together with the ships remaining service life. Furthermore, although 2015 may seem far off, it is not in terms of the number of scheduled dockings over that period if any substantial modifications are to be made or new machinery systems, such as exhaust gas cleaning systems, are to be installed. In the more immediate future it must be ensured that bunker clauses or nominations are such that any fuels to be used on board from January 1, 2012 will not exceed the 3.50% maximum sulphur limit which will be in force from that date.
28/29
Case study: LNG as fuel: classing the first of a kind with Viking Line and STX
Our LNG-as-fuel expertise is being applied to a first of its kind dual fuel ferry for Viking Line. The 56,850 gt ropax ship will be the first deep sea international ferry to use LNG as its primary fuel and is being designed and built to Lloyds Register class at STX Finland. She will also be the first ship to comply with our provisional Rules for LNG propulsion. Viking Lines decision to opt for LNG has been based on a desire to be at the forefront of environmental management as well as to mitigate anticipated fuel costs. We have been involved with the project from the pre-contract stage, working with Viking and STX to help assess and develop the design. And since the contract has been awarded, we have provided the STX technical team with assistance on issues such as developing LNG storage facilities and process piping. We have also carried out a detailed risk analysis for Viking Line on the bunkering process to identify and minimise risks associated with movement of the bunker barge and ship within the confines of the port and with the simultaneous loading of passengers, cars and LNG, and to help ensure compatibility between bunker barge capacity and the ships systems. As usual, we are providing a tailored combination of global and local support to Viking and STX: the Passenger Ship Support Centre in London, our London and Copenhagen design support offices, and colleagues in Finland are working together to make sure every aspect of the design and build is covered. We have visited the yard on several occasions and will maintain this contact throughout the project. Richard Goodwin, Manager of the London Passenger Ship Support Centre comments: This project reflects the breadth of work we have done on the issues and challenges associated with LNG as fuel. It will provide a number of technical challenges for Viking, STX and Lloyds Register. Careful teamwork will help to ensure that these are resolved satisfactorily. In addition to ensuring the safety of the LNG system, a key issue will be the integration of both LNG and fuel oil installations and compliance with the new IMO Safe Return to Port requirements. Delivery is scheduled for the beginning of 2013 and the ship will operate between Stockholm and Turku, Finland.
50%
the percentage of the world fleet currently fitted with NOx certified engines.
Viking Lines new 56,850 gt ferry, to be constructed at STX Turku in Finland and classed by Lloyds Register for delivery in 2013, is a notable LNG-as-fuel initiative
Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)
The Energy Efficiency Design Index what does it mean for your ship?
We break down the EEDI equation
Section 01 Main engine(s) Section 02 Auxiliary engine(s) Section 03 Energy saving technologies (auxiliary power)
EEDI = f PME(i).CFME(i).SFCME(i) + (PAE.CFAE. SFCAE*) + f . PPTI(i) feff(i).PAEeff(i) CFAE.SFCAE

M nME i=1 M nPTI i=1 neff j=1
j=1
i=1
fi.Capacity.Vref. fw
EEDI may be improved through: Use of de-rated engines More efficient engines Use of low-carbon fuels such as LNG and bio-diesel EEDI may be improved through: More efficient engines Optimised auxiliary machinery EEDI may be improved through: Waste heat recovery systems Shaft propulsion generators and other electrical energy efficient technologies Solar power
General design measures The overall EEDI may be improved through: Hydrodynamic and aerodynamic modification, such as optimised hull design Increased cargo carrying capacity Advanced hull coatings Design for slower speed
30/31
The EEDI equation can be divided into four sections, each one applicable to the ships machinery or the technologies being used on board.
Section 04 Energy saving technologies (main power)
feff(i). Peff(i).CFME.SFCME
neff i=1
The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) is already being adopted on a voluntary basis and will possibly become mandatory from 2013, but how does the EEDI equation apply to your ship, and how can you achieve a good rating? A formula for efficiency The EEDI is a formula for calculating ships specific CO2 emissions (per tonne mile). The equation certainly looks complicated, but it can be divided into four sections, each one applicable to the ships machinery or the technologies being used on board. Sections one and two of the formula calculate the CO2 produced by the ships propulsion and auxiliary power systems. Section three accounts for any secondary energy usage by machinery such as shaft propulsion motors and generators. And section four subtracts the CO2 saved through innovative energy saving technologies like kites or sails.
The resulting CO2 figure is divided by the ships transport work or benefit to society (in effect, the ships capacity multiplied by its speed) to arrive at the final EEDI. For each of the four sections, we list some of the existing and developing technical measures which may be considered in order to achieve a better EEDI, and we also highlight other general measures which will influence the EEDI overall. These general measures are not just limited to reducing speed, and indeed speed reduction may not suit your needs. Other options include simple hydrodynamic (underwater) and aerodynamic (above water) design modifications and the application of advanced coatings.
EEDI may be improved through: Wind power Nuclear power
SkySails
Zabi Bazari, Lloyds Registers Ship Energy Services Manager, has been involved in Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) impact studies for the IMO
Legislation: The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)

The EEDI is a tool for controlling CO2 emissions from ships and is primarily applicable to new ships. It was first developed by the IMO in 2003 and draft guidelines on its voluntary implementation were developed in 2009 with input from flag states and other industry bodies. The EEDI is voluntary at present but will possibly become mandatory in 2013. Regulatory implementation Once it is mandatory, the EEDIs regulatory mechanism will allow CO2 to be controlled in much the same way that MARPOL Annex VI has regulated NOx and SOx emissions through phased reductions in limits. The key regulatory elements are: Reference line: The required baseline EEDI for each ship type. Reduction rate: The percentage of EEDI reduction relative to the reference line. Cut-off levels: At present, smaller size vessels are excluded from EEDI control. In order for a ship to comply, its attained EEDI must be less than or equal to the required EEDI for the ship type and size. The first stage of implementation will apply to the following ship types above 400 gt: bulk carriers tankers gas carriers container ships general cargo ships refrigerated cargo ships combination carriers Other ship types, such as ro-ro and cruise vessels are being investigated for inclusion in later phases of implementation and turbine, diesel electric and hybrid propulsion types will initially be excluded. Verification EEDI verification will require input from the shipyard, shipowner and a recognised organisation (RO) in order to achieve certification under the guidelines. Pre-verification will occur at the design stage whereas final verification will be conducted after sea trials and upon commissioning.
Case study Dragging the EEDI down

Aerodynamic modifications to ship structures can reduce drag, leading to fuel savings and a lower overall EEDI. In 2010, we carried out a study with a London and Greece-based client to apply this theory to a 95,000 dwt bulk carrier using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Air flow was modelled to assess wind drag and this included examining the effect of adding fairings and repositioning deckhouse appendages. The findings showed that large reductions in wind drag of up to 20% were possible by attaching well-designed fairings to the ship and altering appendages on the deckhouse and funnel. This equated to an estimated fuel saving of 2.5% when sailing at 14 knots into a 22 knot headwind. Smaller, but still significant, fuel reductions were also estimated for lower wind speeds. Since completion of this work, we have repeated the study on a 59,000 dwt bulk carrier. This achieved a similar fuel consumption reduction, demonstrating the potential for consistent savings when applying the same technique to classic bulk carrier designs. For more information, contact TID@lr.org
Air flow around the deckhouse before (top) and after (bottom) the modifications, showing the achieved wind drag reduction
Inventory of Hazardous Materials
32/33
Ten good reasons for getting an Inventory of Hazardous Materials

Why it pays to get an Inventory now
Known at Lloyds Register as the Green Passport, the Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM) is a key requirement of the Hong Kong Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships. It records materials present in the ships structure, systems and equipment which may be hazardous to the health and the environment. Due to complicated entry-into-force criteria, it is difficult to anticipate when the Convention will be ratified, although it is expected sometime between 2013 and 2015. Once in force, all ships will be required to maintain an Inventory. Yet almost 1,000 ships have already signed up for Lloyds Registers Green Passport services. So why have so many clients asked for assistance in achieving early compliance with the Hong Kong Convention? Here are the top ten reasons for getting an Inventory ahead of time.
01 Quality control Press reports reveal that asbestoscontaining materials have been detected on a number of recent newbuilds, despite the SOLAS Conventions total asbestos ban. In one case so much asbestos was found in thousands of gaskets and seals that the removal operation cost an estimated 10% of the purchase price. The problem is not just confined to newbuilds, either as new supplies are purchased during operation there is still a risk of bringing asbestoscontaining materials on board. Controlling subcontractor supply through an IHM based on Declaration of Conformity forms* is yet another way of showing due diligence and helping ensure a robust asbestos-free procurement plan is in place.
02 Risk management Maintaining an IHM can also improve the health and safety of your ships crews; not only does the IHM control the installation of hazardous materials on ships, it also promotes better hazard management and ensures crews are aware of any potential risks on board. 03 The right time Ensuring that the requirement for an IHM is included in the specification for current new-build projects makes sense for a number of reasons. The construction of a ship is the best time to compile a comprehensive Inventory as there is complete information available on the materials being used. Also, the majority of ships under construction today will be existing ships by the time the Convention enters into force, at which stage they will have to develop an IHM. Compliance now could save you time, effort and additional expenditure at a later date. >
The construction of a ship is the best time to compile a comprehensive Inventory as there is complete information on the materials being used.
Jim Heath Ship Recycling Product Manager
*Declaration of Conformity forms are supplied to manufacturers when items are purchased for installation on board ship and should detail any hazardous materials they contain.
04 Industry support Cargo owners, ports and environmental rating schemes are increasingly supportive of early compliance when assessing ships. The Clean Shipping Project and Business for Social Responsibility include the IHM in their model for increasing environmental awareness. Maintaining an Inventory also assists with meeting a number of required Tanker Management Self Assessment (TMSA) elements, potentially leading to commercial and cost benefits.
05 Beat the competition Early compliance with the Convention requirements can put you one step ahead of your competitors, helping you demonstrate your companys commitment to best environmental practice and boost your reputation in the marketplace. 06 Avoid surprises The requirement for all ships to develop and maintain an IHM could be brought in as a voluntary requirement, possibly at short notice and ahead of other regulations in the Convention. Throughout 2010, the Senior Implementation Officer at IMO, a number of NGOs, and international shipowners associations such as ICS, BIMCO and INTERTANKO all supported such a move, particularly for ships going for recycling.
07 Monitoring performance An Inventory not only assists with in-house environmental management systems but provides measurable and achievable objectives for ISO14001 certified companies; maintaining an IHM demonstrates continual improvement. 08 Adding value When it comes to selling your ship, either to a new owner or a cash buyer, important documentation regarding potential hazards can be hard to find and in some cases can even be misleading. Holding an independently approved and verified IHM may, in certain circumstances, increase sale value; the Inventory not only records the presence, location and approximate quantities of hazardous materials on board, but can equally prove that certain materials are absent, saving the need for last minute purchaser surveys at extra cost.
Robin Townsend, Regulatory Affairs Specialist (left), and Jim Heath, Ship Recycling Product Manager. Robin has led Lloyds Registers involvement in the development of the Ship Recycling Convention.
34/35
Legislation: The Ship Recycling Convention

The Hong Kong Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships was adopted by 67 member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in May, 2009. It is designed to address growing concerns about global ship recycling standards. 09 Improved planning As well as aiding financial planning by promoting better awareness of the changing value of assets due to increasingly stringent dismantling requirements, the IHM can provide additional in-service benefits. Maintaining a record of all potential onboard hazards enables fleet-wide long-term liability planning, allowing you to identify all ships on which a hazard is present and your potential total liability for its removal or replacement. 10 Easier recycling And last but not least, maintaining an IHM is the first step towards safer and more environmentally sound decommissioning of your ship at the end of her life, helping your chosen facility to formulate a Ship Recycling Plan. The Convention will enter into force 24 months after the date on which 15 states, representing 40% of world merchant shipping by gross tonnage, have ratified it. The combined maximum annual ship recycling volume of those states must, during the preceding 10 years*, constitute not less than 3% of their combined merchant shipping tonnage. In 2010, the IMO Secretary-General reiterated the wish that major ship recycling nations join the Convention as soon as possible. However, to date the Convention has only been signed, subject to ratification or acceptance, by France, Italy, the Netherlands, Saint Kitts & Nevis and Turkey. The fact that these states have only signed subject to ratification means that, at the time of writing, the total number of signatories recorded by the IMO as contributing to the entry into force requirements is nil. What the Convention will require Once the Convention is in force, shipowners will need: An Inventory of Hazardous Materials, which must be maintained throughout the life of the ship A Ship Recycling Plan, developed in partnership with an authorised recycling facility Permission from the flag state to conduct a Final Survey An International Ready for Recycling Certificate, issued by the flag state once the Final Survey is completed.
21
the number of different ship types which have been issued with a Green Passport from Lloyds Register
*This means the 10 years preceding the date by which 15 states have ratified the Convention.
How can we help?
Support at every step

Our services cover the entire ship lifecycle. From helping you get things right at the earliest design stage to maintaining quality in service, we help you operate safely and sustainably through life. Take a look to see how we support owners, operators, builders and designers at every step.
01 Design
02 Construction
03 Operation
04 End of life
[01] 01 Design At the design stage we work with you to help get things right first time so that your ship operates as safely, cleanly and efficiently as possible through life. Pre-contract advice Design optimisation Plan approval [01] Rule assessment and statutory computational software [02] ShipRight software [03] Statutory certification Environmental services Human factors services Type approval Technical investigations Training 02 Construction At construction we help ensure your new vessel meets the design requirements and is completed as efficiently as possible. Pre-contract advice Construction survey and monitoring [04] Materials and components survey [05] Statutory certification Environmental services Technical investigations Training 03 Operation In service our priorities are fleet safety and quality. We help you operate your ship sustainably, maintaining compliance and helping optimise efficiency. Pre-contract advice Port state control advice [06] FOBAS [07] Class survey [08] In-water survey [09] Statutory certification [10] Environmental services Human factors services [11] Maintenance optimisation Ship emergency response services Ship inspection and assessment Software Technical investigations [12] Type approval [13] Training 04 End of life At the end of your ships life our services help you comply with recycling requirements and provide added confidence in a safe dismantling process. Pre-contract advice Final survey [14] Statutory certification [14] Audit during dismantling [15] Training
[02] [03]
[11]
[13] [06] [04] [03] [07] [12] [15] [08] [09] [14]
[10]
[09]
[05]
Contact
36/37
Talk to us
Lloyds Register is uniquely placed to provide support to owners, operators, builders and regulators interested in a cleaner, greener shipping industry. Helping to build understanding of safety, environmental and operational issues and related risks is our daily work. Our environmental services cover a wide range of issues affecting ship design, operation and dismantling. They range from helping you interpret and prepare for future regulations to holistic reviews to help you reduce environmental impacts. Talk to us today and see how we can help you operate more safely and sustainably: www.lr.org/sate
Printed on Soporset Premium Offset from the Robert Horne Group. The virgin wood fibre is sourced from Spain and Chile and produced at a mill in Scotland that has been awarded the ISO14001 certificate for environmental management. The pulp is bleached using an elemental chlorine-free (ECF) process. Soporset is an FSC product group from well-managed forests and other controlled sources. Services are provided by members of the Lloyds Register Group. For further details please see our website: www.lr.org/entities June 2011
www.lr.org/marine

LR - Shipping &amp; Environment

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LR - Shipping &amp; Environment

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Shipping and the environment

Scenarios and trends

Scenarios and trends

We may be 800 pound gorillas, but are we running out of bananas?

Million kW installed power

German power stations

German power stations

Other dry fleet

Gas 14.4 fleet

Scenarios and trends Figure 2

Unit Design consumption Mt/day Knots $/Mt N. Miles $/day

Case 1 350 25 200 5,000 100,000

Case 2 350 25 1,500 5,000 100,000

Speed of ship (knots)

Voyage fuel cost saving $550/tonne

Voyage fuel cost saving $1,550/tonne

Ship cost increase

Scenarios and trends

Martin Stopford, Director of Clarksons and Head of Clarkson Research

Scenarios and trends

Scenarios and trends

Scenarios and trends

Scenarios and trends

Mads Stensen, Environmental Manager, Maersk Line

Scenarios and trends

Shipping, the environment and politics

Jacob Sterling Head of Climate & the Environment, Maersk Line

Scenarios and trends

Scenarios and trends

Scenarios and trends

Making the right decisions in a more complex world

Researching tomorrows ship

Furthering research through global collaboration

Researching tomorrows ship

Researching tomorrows ship

the thermal power output of a small modular reactor (SMR)

the current maximum fuel sulphur content limit within ECAs

Researching tomorrows ship

Bremerhaven Rotterdam Zeebrugge

Jeddah Jebel Ali

Maersk Kalmars route between Europe and India

Environmental roadmap (overleaf)

< See the environmental roadmap overleaf

Environmental roadmap 2011

Anti-Fouling Systems Convention

Entered into force September 2008.

Voluntary bio-fouling guidelines are likely in July 2011

Ballast Water Management Convention

Possible entry into force: 2012-2013

MARPOL Convention Annex I: Oil

Revised Annex VI entered into force July 1, 2010

Maximum sulphur content limit reduces to 0.10% m/m on January 1, 2015

Entry into force is now expected between 2013 and 2015

EEDI could become mandatory on January 1, 2013

SEEMP could become mandatory on January 1, 2013

Weighing up your options

Ballast water treatment

Ten steps to selecting a ballast water treatment system

Ballast water treatment

Legislation: The Ballast Water Management Convention

BWE or BWT until 2016; BWT only from 2016

1,500 5,000 m3 > 5,000 m3

Ballast water treatment

LR - Shipping & Environment

LR - Shipping & Environment