Technology Opportunities and Strategies towards Climate friendly trAnsport

FP7-TPT-2008-RTD-1

Coordination and Support Action (Supporting)

Deliverable D1 (WP 1 report)

Techno-Economic Analysis of Low-GHG Emission Marine
Vessels

ETH Zürich

Sara Safarianova, Fabrizio Noembrini,

Konstantinos Boulouchos, Philipp Dietrich

Dissemination level

Public PU X

Restricted to other programme participants (including Commission Services) PP

Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission PE

Services)

Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission CO

Services)
Coordinator: Dr. Andreas Schäfer
University of Cambridge
Martin Centre for Architectural and Urban Studies, and
Institute for Aviation and the Environment
1-5 Scroope Terrace, Cambridge CB2 1PX, UK
Tel.: +44-1223-760-129
Fax: +49-341-2434-133
E-Mail: as601@cam.ac.uk
Internet: www.toscaproject.org

Contact: ETH Zurich

Institut f. Energietechnik
ML J 40
Sonneggstrasse 3
8092 Zürich
Tel.: +41 44 632 36 68
Fax: +41 44 632 11 01
Internet: www.lav.ethz.ch/

Sara Safarianova
Tel.: +41 44 632 83 43
E-mail: safarianova@lav.mavt.ethz.ch

Fabrizio Noembrini
Tel.: +41 44 632 72 55
E-Mail: noembrini@lav.mavt.ethz.ch

Philipp Dietrich
Tel.: +41 56 310 45 73
E-Mail: philipp.dietrich@psi.ch

Konstantinos Boulouchos
Tel.: +41 44 632 56 48
E-Mail: boulouchos@lav.mavt.ethz.ch

Date: 17.03.2011
Contents

Contents ................................................................................................................................. III

Abbreviations......................................................................................................................... IV

Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 5

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6

2 Reference marine vessel ..................................................................................................... 7

3 Technology options .......................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Vessel design optimizations ................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Propeller design optimization .............................................................................................. 12

3.2.1 Coaxial Contra Rotating Propellers............................................................................... 12

3.2.2 Propeller boss cap with fan .......................................................................................... 13

3.3 Engine energy recovery ........................................................................................................ 14
4 Operation improvements.................................................................................................. 15

4.1 Hull coating........................................................................................................................... 16

4.2 Propeller maintenance ......................................................................................................... 17
5 Constraints for reducing CO2 emissions ............................................................................. 18
6 Results ............................................................................................................................. 20

6.1 Technological feasibility ....................................................................................................... 20

6.2 Energy consumption and CO2 emissions .............................................................................. 21

6.3 Retail price and operating costs ........................................................................................... 23

6.4 Cost effectiveness analysis ................................................................................................... 24

7 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 26

Category ........................................................................................................................................... 26
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... 27

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... 27

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 28

III
Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description
ACS Air Cavity System
CCRP Coaxial Contra Rotating Propellers
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
DWT Dead Weight Tonnage
EU Europe
EU-27 Europe with 27 member states
HFO Heavy Fuel Oil
gCO2 grams CO2
gCO2-eq grams CO2 equivalent
GHG Greenhouse gas
IMO International Maritime Organization
k€ Thousand Euros
kW Kilowatts
km Kilometre
p-km Passenger kilometres
PBCF Propeller Boss Cap with Fan
TEU Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit
ton-km Tonnes kilometres
UNCTD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
WTT Well-to-tank
WTW Well-to-wheel

IV
Abstract

The global movement of goods is highly dependent on marine transportation. In 2008, about 38% of
the total freight tonne-kilometres were generated by marine vessels in Europe. With continuing
economic growth, marine transportation is likely to further increase in both absolute and relative
terms. However, increased concerns over climate change in general and CO2 emissions from
transportation in particular will likely increase the pressure on the shipping industry. In this work,
technological measures with the potential to reduce fuel consumption and GHG emission from
marine freight transport vessels are studied in detail. Three ship categories of tankers, bulkers and
container vessels, are chosen as the reference vehicles with fleet average characteristics and the
annual freight transport work. The technological measures are analyzed from a fuel consumption
reduction and CO2 emissions abatement perspectives for each ship category. The existing barriers to
implementation of the studied measures are further discussed and the overall fuel consumption
reduction potential under each technology option is estimated. The cost characteristics along with
the mitigation costs are estimated to complete the techno-economic analysis.

5
1 Introduction

The TOSCA project aims to identify promising technology and fuel pathways to reduce
transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions through midcentury. An important building block
of this project is the techno-economic specification of low-GHG emission transportation
technologies, which are input into a scenario analysis. TOSCA considers all major modes of
passenger and freight transport, along with transportation fuels and technologies capable of
enhancing infrastructure capacity. This report on low-GHG emission marine vehicles is thus one out
of a number of such techno-economic studies and is focused on maritime transport sector.

Seaborne transport is strongly linked to the world economy. In 2007, 41.5% of the transport activity
in tonne-kilometres within EU-27 was handled by ships, which represents the second largest share in
freight transportation in the EU-27 after road transport with a 47.3% share. However maritime
freight transport within EU-27 accounts for only 2.3% of total CO2 emissions as shown in Figure 1.
This can be attributed to considerably higher fuel efficiencies of marine freight transport vessels
compared to the road freight transport vehicles.

10'000

1'000

100

10

1
Road Rail Sea Air
Freight transport in thousand m ton-km 1'915 453 1'679 3
Passenger transport in thousand m p-km 4'725 481 41 572
CO2 emissions in million tonnes 905 8 22 22

Figure 1 EU-27 freight and passenger transport volume and CO2 emissions by mode, in 2007
source: (1), (2)
*
Only domestic and intra-EU-27 air and sea transport are included, excluding international bulkers, excluding the CO2
emissions from electricity consumption for railways

In comparison, marine passenger transport accounts for merely 0.6% of total passenger-kilometres
as shown in Figure 1. Due to this small share in transport activity, passenger transport marine
vehicles are excluded in the current study.

Reducing GHG emissions from shipping is an ongoing debate within the International Maritime
Organization (IMO), the United Nation’s organization regulating international shipping, and within
the European Commission. As GHG emissions in shipping sector are projected to increase with the
continuous growth in international trade, achieving significant emission reductions might appear
challenging. However, there exist a number of effective technological as well as operation measures
which can have a considerable impact on GHG emissions from this sector. A selection of available

6
technological as well as operating measures are analyzed in the present work and the associated
additional investment and operating costs for each option are then estimated to complete the
techno-economic picture.

2 Reference marine vessel

Before analyzing the technology options for reducing CO2 emissions from marine vessels, it is
important to define reference vehicles that represent the prevailing new technology with present-
day fuel consumption and emission characteristics. For this purpose the statistical data on the
volume of transported goods by type of ship was studied. As shown in

Table 1, oil tankers, bulk carriers, and container ships account for nearly two-thirds of all vessels
and—because of their comparatively large size—for more than 90% of all dead weight tonnes.
Consequently, these three ship categories are selected as representative marine vessels in the
present study.

Table 1 also reports the average European shipping fleet deadweight tonnage for each ship category.

Table 1 Europe shipping fleet by number and dead weight tonnage, source: (1)
1
Number of ships dwt (thousands) Average dwt
EU-27 Share % EU-27 Share % EU-27
Total fleet 11’130 100.0 392’052 100.0 35,224
Tankers 2’749 24.7 156’638 40.0 56,980
Bulk Carrier 2’071 18.6 124’061 31.6 59,903
Container ships 2’249 20.2 80’119 20.4 35,625
General Cargo 3’331 30.0 28’923 7.4 8,682
Passenger 730 6.5 2’311 0.6 3,165
Table notes:
1
deadweight tonnage is a measure of how much weight a ship is carrying; it includes the weight of cargo, fuel, fresh water,
ballast water, provisions, passengers and crew

As TOSCA is aimed to include the international marine transport as well, the Europe average shipping
fleet characteristics (presented above) are then compared with the international shipping fleet, in
order to select the most representative reference vessels for each ship category. Figure 2 illustrates
the international fleet deadweight tonnage ranges for all existing ship categories.

As expected, oil tankers have higher average dead weight tonnage in international shipping rather
that in intra European marine transport. On the other hand the deadweight tonnage characteristics
for bulkers and container ships are close to the European average ones. In the present study, crude
oil tankers are selected as representative international shipping marine vessels with dwt of 120 to
200 thousand tonnes. Bulk carriers and container ships are selected from the average dwt range for

7
European fleet, with 60 to 100 thousand tonnes for bulkers and 5 to 8 thousand TEU1s for container
vessels.

Crude oil tanker

Product tanker

Chemical tanker

Gas tankers

Dry bulker

General cargo

Reefer

Container

vehicle / RoRo

0 50'000 100'000 150'000 200'000 250'000 300'000

deadweight tonnage [tonnes]

Average small ships Category Average Average large ships

Figure 2 deadweight tonnage of major cargo ships, source:(3)

The average cargo capacity, vehicle speed, transport work and CO2 emissions for the reference
vehicles are taken from statistics provided by ‘International Maritime Organization’ and are
presented in Table 2 (3).

This table also reports the operating costs, which consist of five components including crew,
insurance, repairs & maintenance, stores & supplies and administrative costs. About 40-45% of the
total annual operating costs account for the crew, while repairs and maintenance costs for typically
15-20% of the operating costs (4).

1
Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit is an inexact unit of cargo capacity used to describe the capacity of container ships, based on
the volume of a 20-foot long and 8-feet wide container, representing almost 21’600 kilograms excluding the tare mass of
container

8
Table 2 Reference marine vessel characteristics, source: (3)

Type unit oil tanker bulk carrier container

Configuration
Size Thousand dwt 120-200 60-100 5-8 TEU
Fuel type - HFO HFO HFO
Average cargo capacity thousand tonnes 150 74 40
Average yearly capacity utilization % 48% 55% 70%
Average service speed km/h 28 27 47
Average main engine power kW 17,075 9,910 55,681
Transport characteristics
Average ton-km per vehicle per year Thousand m ton-km 13.0 7.1 7.8
1
CO2 emission (fully loaded vehicle) gCO2/ton-km 2.2 2.7 15.2
2
Average CO2 emissions gCO2/ton-km 4.4 4.1 16.6
Price and costs
3
Price of new vehicle m €(2009) 42 27 75
4
Total operating costs m €/year 1.2-1.6 1.2-1.6 1.1-1.4
o.w. Crew m €/year 0.5-0.7 0.5-0.7 0.4-0.6
o.w. Maintenance and repairs m €/year 0.2-0.3 0.2-0.3 0.2-0.3
Table notes:
1
CO2 emission figures refer to fuel combustion emissions and do not include well-to-tank emissions
2
Average CO2 emissions represent the fuel consumption under average yearly capacity utilization
3
Prices derived from UNCTD study, source:(5)
4
The total operating costs exclude annaul fuel costs

Technology improvements in seaborne transport vehicles have resulted in an increase in the fuel
efficiency of these vehicles. The study done by International Maritime Organization (3) has analyzed
the historical trends in transport efficiency and fuel consumption of marine vessels. The aggregate
historical trends are shown in Figure 3. Although the trends do not explicitly distinguish the effects of
technology improvements, speed and vessel size changes, they clearly show an overall trend towards
higher fleet transport efficiencies in past years. It should be noted that the presented CO2 emission
figures generally refer to vessel charter and include also auxiliary fuel consumption and safety
margins.

30
CO2 emission [gCO2/ton-km]

25

20

15

10

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

tanker bulker container

Figure 3 Average specific CO2 emissions development for reference ships, source:(3)

9
The future improvements in transport efficiencies and specific CO2 emissions are estimated by the
same study and the trends are shown in Figure 3 (3). These estimations are based on combined
effects of vessel technology improvements and regulatory developments. Since there are no explicit
regulations on consumption of fuel within this industry, only the cost effective technological
improvements are considered within this future projections. These technological improvements
include;
- Rotational energy recovery of propellers (contra-rotating propellers, boos cap fins, etc)
- General improvements in hull design
- Improvements in engine technology
- Increase waste heat recovery
- Operational optimizations (excluding speed reductions)
- Alternative power sources (sails, solar cells, etc)

In the present work, all the above mentioned technological measures (except alternative power
sources) are discussed (see section 3). The future fuel consumption estimations (shown in Figure 3)
consider the impact of potential regulatory measures in addition to the technological measures. Such
regulatory developments include aspects as anti-fouling, air emission reductions, ballast water
requirements, speed regulations, etc.
The present work will however focus on the technology and operation optimization options which
can have considerable impact on reducing the fuel consumption of introduced ship categories.

10
3 Technology options

A range of options are available for further reducing the energy use through ship design
modifications and improved operations. While this section discusses technology options, section 4
presents opportunities for operation modifications which can impact the fuel consumption
significantly. The TOSCA project aims to analyze the technology pathways which will reduce the GHG
emissions of the maritime transport through mid century. Due to the average long lifetime of marine
vessels and the low penetration rates of new technologies, technology options studied in the present
work only cover those that are available by 2020, as these may then dominate the shipping fleet by
2050.

To select the effective fuel consumption reduction technologies for ships, the energy used in
different parts of vehicle has been studied and the distribution is shown in Table 3. Based on the
presented energy dissipation distribution, about 50% of the combusted fuel energy drives the shaft
and around 25% of the energy is lost by exhaust gases and the rest is released as heat.

While about 50% of the fuel energy is transmitted to the propeller, about 17.3% of the power is lost
by propeller and transmission losses. The propeller power is then used to overcome hull friction,
residual resistance, weather and wave resistances. About half of the propeller power is used to
overcome hull frictions. Therefore technology options to reduce the hull friction and propeller losses
and engine energy loss are studied in the preset work and are categorized under vessel design
optimizations, propeller optimization and engine energy recovery respectively.

Table 3 Energy use share of different parts for the reference marine vessels, source: (3)

Parameter Tanker/bulker container

Exhaust 25.5 25.0
Heat 25.2 24.5
Shaft 49.3 50.5
propeller loss 16.3 15.6
propeller power 32.1 33.7
transmission 1.0 1.3

11
3.1 Vessel design optimizations

The fuel efficiency of the ship is closely related to the original design, speed and size. Most design
improvements are applicable solely on new ships. Due to long service life of marine vessels (30 years
by average), the innovative designs with lower fuel consumption characteristics are expected to
penetrate the shipping fleet at rather slow rate. However there are certain retrofitting options which
can be adopted also on ships under operation, which will be discussed in Section 4.

The friction resistance of the vessel hull can be reduced by the Air Cavity Systems. ACS is a non-
retrofit measure applicable on broad range of tankers, bulkers and containers. This technology is
newly available and can be adopted by new designed ships. ACS generates smoothed pressure
gradients which ultimately reduces the wakes around body. On the other hand as ACS decreases the
wetted surface of the hull, fouling is much lessened (6).

The range of potential fuel consumption saving for tankers and bulkers are estimated to be 10-15%
and for container vessels around 5-9% based on manufacturer tests (3). The investment costs are
estimated to be 2-3% of the price of a conventional newly built vessel. However in order to achieve
the fuel consumption reductions highly smoothed hull is needed, therefore good hull maintenance is
actually required to make the potential fuel consumption reductions take place.

Table 4 Fuel consumption and costs characteristics of ACS

unit oil tanker bulker container

1
Reference Fuel consumption g/ton-km 1.35 1.26 5.09
Fuel consumption reduction potential % 10-15 10-15 5-9
Fuel consumption (low estimate) g/ton-km 1.15 1.07 4.63
Fuel consumption (high estimate) g/ton-km 1.21 1.13 4.83
2
Additional investment costs m€ 0.85-1.27 0.53-0.80 1.49-2.24
Table motes:
1
The fuel consumption figures refer to the assumed loading factor of 48%, 50% and 70% for tanker, bulker and containers
respectively
1
Heavy fuel oil is considered for all ships with 40.5 MJ/kg, source: (7)
2
Source: (8)

3.2 Propeller design optimization

As shown in

Table 3, 16.3% of the fuel energy is lost in the propeller. In the current study two technology options
have been analyzed for the propeller efficiency improvements depending on the ship type and
operation.

3.2.1 Coaxial Contra Rotating Propellers

Recovering the rotational energy of the flow after the propeller has significant potential in reducing
the fuel consumption and is mainly applicable on container ships. The coaxial contra-rotating

12
propeller (CCRP) is an established device for this purpose. In this system an additional propeller is
mounted in front of the main propeller with smaller diameter in order to prevent cavitations.
Reported improvements in power consumption range from 6% to 20%. Improvements of 15% and
16% have been reported from two different full scale measurements (8). However this system
requires additional complicated shafting which induces some mechanical losses which decrease the
overall gains. In the present study the potential fuel consumption reduction has been estimated to
be in the range of 3-6% (5). Contra rotating propellers are typically beneficial for relatively heavily
loaded propellers as container vessels rather than bulkers and tankers.

The additional investment costs for the contra-rotating propellers are estimated to be m€ 1.2 with
additional annual operating costs of 100-200 k€ (9). The summary of fuel consumption reduction
potentials are presented in Table 5.

3.2.2 Propeller boss cap with fan

Propeller rotation generates turbulent vortices which reduce the overall efficiency of the propulsion
system. The origin of vortices is the conflict of the flow running along the direction of the propeller
rotation with the flow running the opposite direction with a small distance to the propeller hub. The
method to reduce the propeller vortices is the use of a Propeller Boss Cap with Fins (PBCF). The small
fins installed behind the propeller rotate in the same direction as the propeller and avoid generation
of vortices. This technology is available today and about 1000 ships are equipped with these
propellers. The estimated potential fuel consumption reduction is 4 to 5 percent. However studies
show that this technology might be less effective in practice (10). Therefore in the present study the
fuel consumption reduction potential of 2-4% has been assumed.
The estimated capital cost of PBCF ranges from €14,500 for 735 kW engine to €105,000 for 22,050
kW engines (10). Assuming a linear relation between the engine power and the propeller price, the
approximate investment costs are driven for the reference bulker and tanker. The results on fuel
consumption and additional investment costs are presented in Table 5. In the present study it has
been assumed that the PBCF system will not affect the operating and maintenance costs of the
vessel.
Table 5 Fuel consumption and cost characteristics of propeller upgrades

unit oil tanker bulker container

1
Reference Fuel consumption g/ton-km 1.35 1.26 5.09
Propeller upgrade PBCF PBCF CCRP
Fuel consumption reduction potential % 2-4 2-4 3-6
1
Fuel consumption (low estimate) g/ton-km 1.32 0.91 1.29
1
Fuel consumption (high estimate) g/ton-km 1.29 0.88 1.32
Additional investment costs k€ 84 54 1,200
Additional maintenance costs k€ - - 100-200
Table motes:
1
The fuel consumption figures refer to the assumed loading factor of 48%, 50% and 70% for tanker, bulker and containers
respectively
1
Heavy fuel oil is considered for all ships with 40.5 MJ/kg, source: (7)

13
3.3 Engine energy recovery

Marine vessels are propelled by low-speed or medium-speed diesel engines. The amount of power
outtake depends highly on the ship type and the voyage specifications. However as shown in

Table 6 the obtainable thermal efficiency for these engines are relatively high. Therefore the power
generation optimizations and improvements are considered to have minor fuel consumption
reduction potential. Engine energy recovery systems on the other hand provide potential in fuel
consumption reduction of maximum 10% by combining the engine with a turbine which is driven by
the exhaust heat of the engine (11).

The turbines are coupled to a generator which provides electrical power. This electrical power can be
used directly on board or even partly as an assist to the main engine. These systems are available
technologies today and have been commercialized for low-speed engines.

Table 6 Maximum Thermal efficiency with present day engine systems; source: (3)
Small (2 MW) Medium (10 MW) Large (30 MW)
Low-speed diesel ~ 47% ~ 50% ~ 53%
Medium-speed diesel ~ 43% ~ 47% ~ 50%

However there are certain barriers in application of these systems on marine vehicles. A significant
barrier is the large size, weight and installation complexity of these systems. Furthermore these
systems are generally optimized for a single operating point which is highly affected by different
power load and various operations.

The cost for the engine energy recovery systems are estimated to reach approximately 1% of the
original price of the vessel. The operating costs are also expected to decrease by a total 18% based
on the study done by AEA on ‘Greenhouse gas emission from shipping’ (8).

Table 7 Fuel consumption and cost characteristics for engine energy recovery system

unit oil tanker bulker container

Reference Fuel consumption g/ton-km 1.35 1.26 5.09
Fuel consumption reduction potential % 10 10 10
Fuel consumption g/ton-km 1.21 1.13 4.58
Additional investment costs k€ 425 265 745
Table motes:
1
The fuel consumption figures refer to the assumed loading factor of 48%, 50% and 70% for tanker, bulker and containers
respectively
1
Heavy fuel oil is considered for all ships with 40.5 MJ/kg, source: (7)

14
4 Operation improvements

Maritime transport fuel efficiency can be improved greatly by operation optimizations. Based on the
study carried by ‘International Maritime Organization’, around 10% to 50% reduction in specific CO2
emissions can be achieved by fleet management, voyage optimizations and energy management.

Table 8 reports the potential operational measures which can be effectively employed to reduce the
specific CO2 emissions.

Table 8 Operational optimization measures, source: (3)

Measure Comments
Using right ships for the transport
Fleet management Reduction in scheduled speed
Traffic management at ports
Selection of optimal routes
Voyage optimization Just in time arrival
Ballast optimizations
Energy management On board energy consumption reduction

Energy efficiency can be improved by deploying appropriate ship type for the transport and
managing the cargo density. In other words larger ships are not efficient when partly loaded and
should utilize the maximum cargo capacity to provide least specific fuel consumption per ton
transported good. Based on recent study done by IMO, weather routing can reduce the fuel
consumption by 1% in total (12).

Voyage optimization can on the other hand ensure optimum routes with respect to weather
conditions and potentially avoid storms. Just in time arrival requires incentives and contractual
arrangements to ensure safe margins in arrival times and prevent severe penalties on late arrivals.
The potential in saving the fuel consumption by just-in-time arrival has been assessed to be 1-5%
(12).
Energy management on board will also provide fuel consumption reductions by avoiding unnecessary
electrical energy use, optimizing the main engine to ensure optimum operation, hull cleaning and
propeller brushing.
However the highest potential in operation optimization measures will be achieved only when
economic considerations would change in favour of energy efficient arrivals and contractual parties
agree on the imposed measures. As TOSCA aims to identify the most promising technology and fuel
options, fleet management and voyage optimization measures are not analyzed in detail in the
present work. However, specific hull and propeller maintenance optimizations can highly affect the
fuel consumptions and are discussed in the following sections.

15
4.1 Hull coating

Significant reduction in friction resistances can be achieved by antifouling hull coatings which
enhance the smoothness of the hull. The incremental costs and fuel consumption reduction potential
varies a lot depending on the ship type and size. The study done by IMO on coating applications has
estimated a range of 1-5% reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions differentiated by the
ship type compared to the regular coatings. However it should be noted that in order to achieve the
mentioned reduction potential, the coatings should get renewed every five years, therefore the
incremental costs are going to be accumulated in the total service life time of the vessel.

As mentioned before the incremental costs are scaled with the size of the ship. The incremental
coating costs for a bulker with 65’000-80’000 dwt have been estimated to be 120 - 160 k€ (3). In the
present study it is assumed that the incremental costs vary linearly with respect to the hull surface.
The latter is estimated proportional to 2/3 power of the gross tonnage of the ship(3). The results on
fuel consumption savings and additional costs are presented in Table 9.

Table 9 Fuel consumption and cost characteristics for hull antifouling and coating

unit oil tanker bulker container

1
Reference fuel consumption g/ton-km 1.35 1.26 5.09
fuel consumption reduction potential % 1.5-7.3 1-5 1.1-5.5
1
Fuel consumption (low estimate) g/ton-km 1.33 1.24 5.03
1
Fuel consumption (high estimate) g/ton-km 1.25 1.19 4.81
Incremental maintenance costs
Low estimate k€/ (5 years) 240 120 60
High estimate k€/ (5 years) 320 160 80
Table motes:
1
The fuel consumption figures refer to the assumed loading factor of 48%, 50% and 70% for tanker, bulker and containers
respectively
1
Heavy fuel oil is considered for all ships with 40.5 MJ/kg, source: (7)

16
4.2 Propeller maintenance

As mentioned before, propeller and transmission losses cause around 16% losses in the original
power generated by the engine. Therefore decreasing the propeller surface friction will reduce the
friction drag on the propeller blades and will increase the fuel efficiency. It is estimated that more
frequent propeller brushing will reduce the fuel consumption from 0.5% to 5% depending on the ship
type (3). The propeller brushing should be repeated every five years of operation in order to achieve
highest fuel consumption reductions. The additional maintenance costs of 2000€ to 3500€ are
estimated to be imposed (3). A summary of the fuel consumption and cost characteristics of
propeller brushing is provided in

Table 10.

Table 10 Fuel consumption and cost characteristics for propeller brushing

unit oil tanker bulker container

1
Reference fuel consumption g/ton-km 1.35 1.26 5.09
Fuel consumption reduction potential % 2-5 2-5 2-5
1
Fuel consumption (low estimate) g/ton-km 1.32 1.23 4.98
1
Fuel consumption (high estimate) g/ton-km 1.28 1.19 4.83
Incremental maintenance costs
Low estimate €/year 2,000 2,000 2,000
High estimate €/year 3,500 3,500 3,500
Table motes:
1
The fuel consumption figures refer to the assumed loading factor of 48%, 50% and 70% for tanker, bulker and containers
respectively
1
Heavy fuel oil is considered for all ships with 40.5 MJ/kg, source: (7)

17
5 Constraints for reducing CO2 emissions

The implementation of analyzed technology options on new ships are challenges by some
constraints. The main issues can be classified as; imposed hidden costs, interparty agreements and
additional imposed capital costs. A brief description of the mentioned effects is presented as follows;

New technologies are associated with new risks and additional costs of learning called as hidden
costs. However the imposed hidden costs can vary between different technologies depending on the
ship type and the technology improvement level and the required re-engineering effort, for example
hull design modifications can impose high learning costs to the manufacturer.

The development of low GHG emission technologies on ships requires interparty agreements and
cooperation within the shipping industry. The new technologies for ship design are usually faced with
reluctance by shipyards; due to the high risk of delivery delays and increased design and training
costs on contracts that they have already signed. This results in a delay in the new technology
penetration.

New ship designs impose higher capital costs to the owner but will on the other hand improve the
energy efficiency of the operation and therefore benefit the ship user. As the ship owner and user
are generally different in the shipping industry, this reduces the incentives for the owners to invest
on more efficient ships. However the representatives of ship-owner associations in northern Europe
have suggested that this problem can be solved as owners can increase the rent for an improved
ship, while the user is also willing to pay the increase in rents which can be compensated by fuel cost
reductions (8). However this problem may still appear in the long-term contracts which have been
already signed.
Imposed additional investment costs is considered as an important barrier against new technologies
on new ship designs. This is especially the case for hull optimizations, hull coatings and propeller
design optimizations which require higher costs of implementations. However in the case of high fuel
prices, higher investment cost on technologies with lower fuel consumption is generally an accepted
strategy in this industry (8).
There is a threat that technology improvements in ship design and operation optimizations are not
well-known among operators and owners, which makes it further difficult to achieve the desired fuel
consumption reduction.

All measures focusing on operation optimizations are associated with staff training costs which can
be treated as hidden costs. Measures as fleet management are likely to have higher hidden costs as a
large number of parties and stakeholders are expected to be involved. Speed reduction measures on
the other hand causes increase in service demand, and ultimately growth in the number of ships. The
costs induced by speed reductions are directly proportional to the demand increase in capacity;
therefore a speed reduction of 10% in the fleet will ultimately lead to an increase in asset costs of
10%, but will reduce the fuel costs at a higher rate.

Traditionally the parties in this sector have been mainly focused on fast delivery service rather than
fuel consumption reductions as the transit time ultimately increases the customer prices. However
recent increase in the fuel prices has slightly changed the attitude towards fuel cost savings and the

18
operators are willing to provide services which are more efficient. There have been several attempts
especially in Swedish Ship Owner’s Association to reduce the speed of deliveries to reduce the
amount of emissions, implying the fuel consumption reduction motivation from the very end of the
supply chain. However it is important to note that this type of incentive although highly valuable, are
limited to a small number of countries and global incentives are required to accept the speed
reduction limits in the whole fleet. On the other hand not all transport goods can be carried in low
speeds as they might be perishable or highly valuable.

19
6 Results

Several low CO2 emission technology and operation optimization options were analyzed in the
previous sections. In this section the results on the technology feasibility, fuel consumption and CO2
emission reduction potentials, additional investment and operating costs and emission mitigation
costs are presented.

6.1 Technological feasibility

Maine vessels have the long service life of 30 years; therefore the new technology and design
measures to be implemented on new ships would penetrate at very low rate in the fleet. The design
modification and technological improvement options analyzed in the current study are generally
technologically feasible and available today. However the penetration of these measures in the new
fleet is expected to take place at low rate as the shipyards are not generally willing to modify the
designs on the signed contracts.
On the other hand the operational optimizations analyzed in the present work are retrofitting
measures which can be applied on all the ships in the fleet and provide high CO2 emission reductions
with low mitigation costs. The overall technology and operational options analyzed in the current
study are illustrated as trajectories in Figure 4. As shown in this figure, the technology and operation
optimizations are available options which can be applied on new or existing ships from today.

Operation: hull coating, propeller brushing

Design: Air cavity systems, propeller upgrades, engine energy recovery

2010 2015 2020 2050

Figure 4 Technology and operation measures for marine vehicles

20
6.2 Energy consumption and CO2 emissions

The specific fuel consumption and CO2 emission for each technology and operation optimization
option is assessed in this section. Upstream CO2 emissions for fuel production and distribution are
adopted from the WP4 of the TOSCA project to complete the well-to-wheel CO2 emissions
assessments (7).
The estimated values are presented in low and high ranges, as the actual performance of each
technology is hard to estimate due to various operation conditions and high uncertainties. The
specific fuel consumption and CO2 emissions for each technology and operation optimization option
is reported in Table 11.

Table 11 Fuel consumption and CO2 emission characteristics

unit oil tanker Bulker Container

Reference vehicle
1
Fuel consumption g/ton-km 1.35 1.26 5.09
2
WTW CO2 emission gCO2-eq/ton-km 4.76 4.44 17.97
Transport work Thousand m ton-km 13.0 7.1 7.8
Load factor % 48% 50% 70%
Technological measures
Air cavity system
Fuel consumption g/ton-km 1.15 - 1.21 1.07-1.13 4.63-4.83
WTW CO2 emission gCO2eq/ton-km 4.05 - 4.29 3.77-3.99 16.35-17.07
Propeller design optimization PBCF PBCF CCRP
Fuel consumption g/ton-km 1.29 - 1.32 1.21-1.24 4.78-4.93
WTW CO2 emission gCO 2eq/ton-km 4.57 - 4.67 4.26-4.39 16.89-17.43
Engine energy recovery
Fuel consumption g/ton-km 1.21 1.13 4.58
WTW CO2 emission gCO2eq/ton-km 4.29 3.99 16.17
Operational measures
Hull coating
Fuel consumption g/ton-km 1.25 - 1.33 1.19-1.24 4.81-5.03
WTW CO2 emission gCO2eq/ton-km 4.42 – 4.69 4.22-4.39 16.98-17.77
Propeller maintenance
Fuel consumption g/ton-km 1.28 - 1.32 1.19-1.23 4.83-4.98
WTW CO2 emission gCO 2eq/ton-km 4.52 - 4.67 4.22-4.32 17.07-17.61
Table notes:
1
The fuel consumption figures refer to the assumed loading factor of 48%, 50% and 70% for tanker, bulker and containers
respectively
1
Heavy fuel oil is considered for all ships with 40.5 MJ/kg, source: (7)
2
WTT CO2 emission for HFO is assumed 0.27 gCO2-eq/g fuel , source :(7)

Figure 5 shows how different technology and operation optimization options would affect the
specific CO2 emissions for the reference ship types. As explained before, the fuel consumption
reduction potential depends on the ship type and their operation specifications. This figure clearly
shows that air cavity and engine energy recovery systems provide high reduction potential in specific

21
CO2 emissions. Among the analyzed operational measure, propeller brushing shows medium to high
fuel consumption reduction potential.

5.0 20

4.8

WTW CO2 emissisons

WTW CO2 emissions

[gCO2-eq/ton-km]
[gCO2-eq/ton-km]

4.6
tanker and bulker

container ship
18
4.4

4.2
16
4.0

3.8

3.6 14
Ref Air cavity system Prop. upgrade Engine energy Hull coating Prop.
recovery maintenance

Tanker Bulk carrier Container

Figure 5 WTW CO2 emissions of reference ships with alternative technology or operation
measures
Figure notes:
1
The fuel consumption figures refer to the assumed loading factor of 48%, 50% and 70% for tanker, bulker and containers
respectively
1
Heavy fuel oil is considered for all ships with 40.5 MJ/kg, source: (7)
2
WTT CO2 emission for HFO is assumed 0.27 gCO2-eq/g fuel , source :(7)

22
6.3 Retail price and operating costs

The technological and operational measures to reduce the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from
the marine vessels impose additional investment or operating costs on the operator or owner of the
ship. While technological measures as engine energy recovery will decrease the annual maintenance
costs of the vessel, other technologies as Coaxial Contra-Rotating Propellers are expected to increase
the annual maintenance costs due to the complexity of the system.

Operation optimization measures are generally associated with additional costs which typically recur
after 5-10 years. The overall cost characteristics of the different technological as well as operational
measures are shown in Table 12.

Table 12 Costs characteristics

unit oil tanker bulker container

Reference price m€ 42 27 75
Operating costs m€/year 1.2-1.6 1.2-1.6 1.1-1.4
Technological measures
Air cavity system
Investment costs m€ 0.84-1.27 0.53-0.79 1.49-2.2
Propeller design optimization PBCF PBCF CCRP
1
Investment costs k€ 84 54 1,200
Additional operating costs k€/year - - 100-200
Engine energy recovery
Investment costs k€ 425 265 745
Operating costs m€/year 0.98-1.3 0.98-1.3 0.90-1.14
Operational measures
Hull coating
Additional Operating costs k€/5year 240-320 120-160 60-80
Propeller maintenance
Additional Operating costs €/5year 2,000-3,500 2,000-3,500 2,000-3,500
Table notes:
1
The investment costs should be renewed every 10 years.

23
6.4 Cost effectiveness analysis

Along the identification of low GHG emission maritime transport technologies, the TOSCA project
aims to analyze the acceptability of these options among the operators. In the marine transport
industry, the involved parties have high incentives to reduce the costs and increase their profits.
Therefore in this section the cost effectiveness of the technology and operation optimization options
are assessed as a measure of acceptability of these options among ship operators. It is further
assumed that the most cost effective option would have high acceptance potential for the ship
owners and operators. For this purpose the annual costs of each technology measure is compared
with the reference case. The additional investment costs of the technology measures are translated
to annual costs using the annuity relation below;

With P the additional investment costs, r the interest rate (4%) and n the expected life time of the
measure. The cost effectiveness of the measures is calculated by comparing the total annual costs
with the potential fuel costs savings by the general relation as follows;

With ‘ ’ being the total annual cost difference €/year, ‘ ’ the annuity investment cost difference
in €/year, ‘ ’ the operating costs difference and ‘ the fuel cost savings per year. The heavy
fuel oil price of 536 €/ton (excluding taxes) is assumed based on the results provided by the WP4 of
the TOSCA project. The transport work of the vessels under different technological and operational
measures is kept constant and identical to the reference vehicle. The cost deference for all analyzed
measures is negative, implying substantial annual costs savings. The main underlying factor is that
substantial fuel costs savings are associated with the new technology and operational measures
which not only compensate the additional investment costs of these technologies, but also provide
cost benefits.

Table 13 Annual cost savings and CO2 mitigations for oil tanker

Cost CO2 CO2 mitigation

Lifetime 1 2 3
saving mitigation costs
Measure year m€/year ton CO2 /year €/ton CO2
Air cavity system 30 0.5-1.3 5,700 – 8,600 -86 to -156
Propeller design optimization 10 0.2 - 0.4 1,150-2,300 -155 to -160
Engine energy recovery 30 1.5 7,700 -190
Hull coating 5 0.1 - 0.6 850-4,200 -93 to -147
Propeller maintenance 5 0.2 - 0.5 1,150-2,850 -164
Table notes:
1
Cost savings include annual operation costs, annuity of initial investments and fuel costs
2
The CO2 mitigation considered annual transport work of reference vessel (see Table 2)
3
mitigation costs consider actual fuel price of 536 €/ton fuel

24
Hence it is important to assess the amount of CO2 emission mitigation in parallel and evaluate CO2
emission mitigation costs for each technology and operation measure. The results on annual cost
saving, potential annual CO2 emission reductions and mitigations costs are presented in Table 13,
Table 14 and 15 for oil tanker, bulker and container vessels respectively.

Based on the results in Table 13, engine energy recovery followed by propeller design optimization is
the most cost effective measures for oil tankers in terms of CO2 emission mitigations. The results for
bulk carriers shown in Table 14 also suggest that engine energy recovery systems provide the least
CO2 emission mitigation costs, followed by propeller design upgrade measure.

Table 14 Annual cost savings and CO2 mitigations for bulker

Costs CO2 CO2 mitigation
Lifetime 1 2 3
savings mitigation costs
Measure year m€/year ton CO2/year €/ton CO2
Air cavity system 30 0.4-0.7 2,900-4,350 -154
Propeller design optimization 10 0.2 290-1,150 -141 to -158
Engine energy recovery 30 0.7 2,900 -233
Hull coating 5 0.2 290-1,450 -116 to 36
Propeller maintenance 5 0.1-0.2 580-1,450 -163
Table notes:
1
Cost savings include annual operation costs, annuity of initial investments and fuel costs
2
The CO2 mitigation considered annual transport work of reference vessel (see Table 2)
3
mitigation costs consider actual fuel price of 536 €/ton fuel

The results in Table 15 for container vessels suggest that engine energy recovery has the lowest
mitigation costs, followed by operation optimization options of propeller maintenance and hull
coatings. In this analysis, engine energy recovery and propeller maintenance optimization are
recognized as high CO2 emissions reducing measures for existing and new ships respectively.

Table 15 Annual cost savings and CO2 mitigations for container vessel
Cost CO2 CO2 mitigation
1 2 3
Lifetime savings mitigation costs
Measure year m€/year ton CO2/year €/ton CO2
Air cavity system 30 1.0-1.8 6,500-11,700 -151
Propeller design optimization 10 0.4-0.9 3,900-7,800 -100 to -120
Engine energy recovery 30 2.3 1,300 -176
Hull coating 5 0.2-1.1 1,400-7,150 -114 to -152
Propeller maintenance 5 0.4-1.1 2,600-6,500 -164
Table notes:
1
Cost savings include annual operation costs, annuity of initial investments and fuel costs
2
The CO2 mitigation considered annual transport work of reference vessel (see Table 2)
3
mitigation costs consider actual fuel price of 536 €/ton fuel

25
7 Conclusions

Several potential technologies and practices to reduce CO2 emissions from marine freight transport
vessels were analyzed in the present work. Three major ship categories of tankers, bulkers and
container vessels were introduced as representative reference ships in European and international
maritime freight transport. Each technology package was evaluated based on the specific fuel
consumption, CO2 emissions, additional investment costs and challenges or constrains in market
penetrations.
The technology and operation optimization options which demonstrate high CO2 emission mitigation
and impose least mitigation costs are recognized as the ‘most promising’ measures in this project. It
is important to note that the results shown in Table 16 rely on the stated assumptions on fleet
operations and transport works; thus significant changes may occur by changing the operation
conditions and fleet dynamics.

Table 16 Most promising technology and operation optimizations measures for marine vessels

Specific fuel WTW CO2 CO2 mitigation

1 2 3
consumption emissions costs
Category
Measure g/ton-km gCO2/ton-km €/ton CO2
Tanker Reference 1.35 4.76 na
120-200 thousand Air cavity system 1.15 - 1.21 4.05 - 4.29 -86 to -156
dwt Engine energy recovery 1.21 4.29 -190
Bulker Reference 1.26 4.44 na
60-100 thousand Air cavity system 1.07-1.13 3.77-3.99 -154
dwt Engine energy recovery 1.13 3.99 -233
Reference 5.09 17.97 na
Container
Engine energy recovery 4.58 16.17 -176
5-8 thousand TEU
Propeller maintenance 4.83-4.98 17.07-17.61 -164

1
The fuel consumption figures refer to the assumed loading factor of 48%, 50% and 70% for tanker, bulker and containers
respectively
1
Heavy fuel oil is considered for all ships with 40.5 MJ/kg, source: (7)
2
WTT CO2 emission for HFO is assumed 0.27 gCO2-eq/g fuel , source :(7)
3
The mitigation costs consider annual cost savings (annual operation costs, annuity of initial investments and fuel costs),
3
The actual fuel price of 536 €/ton fuel

26
List of Figures

Figure 1 EU-27 freight and passenger transport volume and CO2 emissions by mode, in 2007
source: (1), (2) ........................................................................................................................ 6

Figure 2 deadweight tonnage of major cargo ships, source:(3) .......................................................... 8

Figure 3 Average specific CO2 emissions development for reference ships, source:(3)...................... 9

Figure 4 Technology and operation measures for marine vehicles ................................................... 20

Figure 5 WTW CO2 emissions of reference ships with alternative technology or operation measures
............................................................................................................................................. 22

List of Tables

Table 1 Europe shipping fleet by number and dead weight tonnage, source: (1) ............................ 7
Table 2 Reference marine vessel characteristics, source: (3)............................................................ 9

Table 3 Energy use share of different parts for the reference marine vessels, source: (3) ............ 11
Table 4 Fuel consumption and costs characteristics of ACS ............................................................ 12
Table 5 Fuel consumption and cost characteristics of propeller upgrades ..................................... 13
Table 6 Maximum Thermal efficiency with present day engine systems; source: (3) .................... 14

Table 7 Fuel consumption and cost characteristics for engine energy recovery system ................ 14

Table 8 Operational optimization measures, source: (3) ................................................................ 15

Table 9 Fuel consumption and cost characteristics for hull antifouling and coating ...................... 16

Table 10 Fuel consumption and cost characteristics for propeller brushing .................................... 17

Table 11 Fuel consumption and CO2 emission characteristics ........................................................... 21

Table 12 Costs characteristics............................................................................................................. 23
Table 13 Annual cost savings and CO2 mitigations for oil tanker ....................................................... 24

Table 14 Annual cost savings and CO2 mitigations for bulker............................................................ 25

Table 15 Annual cost savings and CO2 mitigations for container vessel............................................. 25

Table 16 Most promising technology and operation optimizations measures for marine vessels .... 26

27
Bibliography

1. EU energy and transport in figures. s.l. : European Commission, 2010.

2. EU CO2 emissions from transport by mode. s.l. : European Commission. (DG TREN), 2010.

3. Prevention of Air Polution from ships. s.l. : International Maritime Organization, 2009.

4. Shipping Profitablity to 2015: The Outlook for Vessel Costs & Revenues. UK : Ocean Shipping
Consultant, 2004.

5. Review of Maritime Transport. Geneva : United Nation Conference on Trade and Development,
2009.

6. Air Cavity Ships. s.l. : Speed at Sea, 2003.

7. Anastasios Perimenis, Stefan Majer, Konstantin Zech, Marcus Holland, Franziska Müller-Lange.
Life Cycle Assesment of Transportation Fuels. s.l. : DBFZ, 2010.

8. Greenhouse gas emission from shipping; trends, projections and abatement potential. s.l. : AEA,
2008.

9. Oskar Levander, Tuomas Sipilä. Machinery Concept for PCTC. s.l. : Wärtsilä, 2006.
10. Frey, H.C. and Kuo, P.J. Best Practices Guidebook for greenhouse gas reductions in freight
transportation. s.l. : U.S. Department of Transportation, 2007.
11. MACHINERY, Energy Efficiency Catalogue. s.l. : Ship Power R&D, Wartsila Corporation, 2009.

12. Study of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships. s.l. : IMO, 2000.

28