gl - energy savings in ship operations - solutions, experiences (2011)

7/30/2019 GL - Energy Savings in Ship Operations - Solutions, Experiences (2011)

1/28

Energy saving in Ship Operations:Solutions, experiences

GL Your competitive edge


2/28

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solut ions and Experiences

Quality Management

Reliable Service

> Use Standards> Apply Methods

Implement Methods

Competitive Rates

> Reduce OpEx> Maintain competitiveness

MarineMoney, New York | 2011 November


3/28


Annual costs per t rade*

Bunker costs: a central factor in defining competitiveness

687n mo

41 (6%)

Ship operations**

582

(85%)

437

41 (9%)

Driven by design andoperations

Strong variances betweencomparable ships

Bunker costs332

(76%)

Capital costs

800 USD/ton

64 (9%)

450 USD/ton

64(15%)

Bunker price

* Far East-Europe, 9,000 TEU, at 25 kn** -


, , , ,


4/28


Bunker 380 cst, RotterdamYearly Average prices, per metric ton

ue r ces

600

700

380cst bunker prices, Rotterdam

e

300

400$

perTonn

100

200

81

83

67

84

96

106

96

68

93

138

117

134

153

155

234

293

345

472

354

450

580

0

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011-

02

Source: Clarksons Research, February 2011



5/28


Annual costs per trade* (at 450 USD/ton)

Slow steaming: an interim reaction an permanent solution?

in mio USD

37741 (9%)

437

Ship operations**

Positive effect onbunker cost partlycompensated by need

for more ships in trade332222

57 (15%)

Bunker costs o ays s ps o en no

designed and equip-ped for slow speeds

(59%)

25 kn

Capital costs

22 kn

64 (15%)

Vessels Speed

* Far East-Europe, 9,000 TEU** -


, , , ,


6/28




7/28

4.400 TEU Container Vessels Fuel Efficiency

600

800

$/Tonne

40.000

50.000

sin$/day

Development/Forecast of Bunker price & Container vessel Timecharter rate

Heavy Fuel Oil BunkerLeft hand scale

0

200

400

BunkerC

ostsi

0

10.000

20.000

.

TimecharterRat price (Rotterdam, 380 cst)

Time Charter rate 4.400

TEU container vesselRight hand scale

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

2002 2010 2018

Fuel costs* 17.500 40.500 60.000

Forecast

Ratio fuel costs / charter rate 0,75 2,0 2,7

Efficiency improvement** 10% 10% 10%

1 yr charter rate $/day 23.125 20.000 22.000

Yearly total savings*** [in US$] 1.200.000 1.800.000500.000

Daily savings in % of charter rate 20% 27%7,5%

Daily total savings*** [in US$] 4.000 6.0001.750


GL; December 2010

* Assumptions for bunker consumption, vessel speed and sailing days per year: 130 tonnes per day/24 knots/300 days (2002), 88 tonnes per day/21 knots/300 days (2010), 88 tonnes per day/21 knots/300 days (2018).

** Estimated reduction of HFO Bunker consumption, based on GL efficiency products/services.

*** Savings due to a decrease of yearly fuel costs.


8/28


1.600 50.000

Worldwide Fleet development [mGT]

1.200

1.40040.000

million GT [left hand scale] Number of vessels [right hand scale]

2,1% * 2,0% *

600

800

.

20.000

30.000Million

GT

No. ofvessels

6,1% *

725,2

776,1

833,6

860

917

974

1.0

14

1.0

48

1.0

54

1.0

61

1.0

82

1.1

11

1.1

33

1.1

51

1.1

72

0

200

400

0

10.000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

YearsSource: Clarksons Research, March 2010

(Vessel > 2.000 GT) * = average yearly growth based on GT



9/28


CO2 Emission Development

1200 Discussed

1000

2

Emission target

- 40 %

600

llion

tonnesC

- 20%-20% of 2005till 2020

200

400mi

0

2005 2020



10/28


* *

capacity * speedEEDI =

Strong effect

and improvement opportunities

Reduce installed power through better design and / or reduced speed

Weaker effect.

> Use fuels with lower emission factor

> Increase capacity


,


11/28


(MEPC 60/4/36, submitted by Japan)

The required EEDI is defined by a reduction relative to the baseline.

MEPC 60/4/36 suggests an initial reduction of 10% for all ship types, based on an assessment of application ofpossible technologies.



12/28


Key success factors:

Design will be a key lever and future ships

Design optimisation

efficient and thus competitive than those

designed in the past and sailing today.Comprehensive/holistic solutions arerequired to achieve significant improvements

Efficiency

An additional cost-reduction potential of 5 -15% can be generated through FutureShip'soperations oriented tools focusing on fuelefficiency without impacting the operationalpro e o a vesse

In an increasingly competitive industry,minimizing bunker costs will be a keysuccess factor. Slow steaming has been a

first step but will not be sufficient movingforward



13/28


ppor un es or nergy av ngsPlanning phase

Construction phase

Added investment% of new buildinginvestment

Savings example% of fuel cost

0.53.0

5.0

-0.5

Service phase

107

5

Hull

0.5

1.5

2.0

-0.5

and cannot be added

Savings depend on

original design andoperational environ-4

5

5Appendages

1.5

2.5

3.0

-0.5 ment

Particularly highpotential after changeof operations (e.g. after

5

5

5

Marineengineering

0.2

1.0

.

10

6

,

Plus monitoring

Plus controlled hull andengine maintenance



14/28




15/28


"ECO Solutions / Schulte, 9.000 TEU vessel

Clients starting point Our service Results

Shipping companies BernhardSchulte and Costamare orderedcontainer vessels at a Chineseshipyard

Based on the existing design hull lineconstraints were agreed with designoffice

Hull lines and propulsion

Total resistance could be reduced bymore than 10%

Hereby owners attained thepossibility to reduce main engines

e orgna es gn o e u neswas performed by a major Chineseship designer

In order to increase the vesselscompetitiveness owners decided to

arrangement were optmse ymeans of CFD analysis

Towing tank tests were performed atHSVA in order to verify thecalculated results and to establish a

MCR which leads to

- Daily fuel oil savings of app. 30tons

- Lube oil savings of about 30 tonsper year

optimisation process aiming onminimization of wave resistance andimproved arrangement of propellerand rudder

design

The optimisation will pay within aperiod shorter than one month



16/28



ca. 200 t Fuel/Day x 365 Days = 73.000 t Fuel/Year

Bunker Cost (in MioUS$) Optimization Optimiazation =. ,

2007: 73.000 t x 492 US$/t = 35,92

2011: 73.000 t x 590 US$/t = 43,01

Over life of ship @ 25 years = 1.077.000



17/28

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Reference Case

Lpp = 288m, Speed: 22,2kn, Installed Power: 54.180kW


Yearly Fuel Consumption/Yearly Fuel Costs

45,000

50,00055,000Pd [kW]

38.528 to

19,3 M

47.286 to23,6 M

-19%

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

not optimized

optimized

OptimizedNot Optimized,

18 19 20 21 22 23

pee n

Tank Test RsultsTank Test Rsults


Base Line Modell Post Modell


18/28



ca. 200 t Fuel/Day x 365 Days = 73.000 t Fuel/Year

Bunker Cost (in MioUS$) Optimization Optimiazation =. , . .

2007: 73.000 t x 492 US$/t = 35,92 29.19 5.37

2011: 73.000 t x 590 US$/t = 43,01 34.84 6.17

Over life of ship @ 25 years = 1.077.000 872.37 204.63



19/28

Reference Case:

Energy saving in Ship Operations: Solutions and Experiences

Power measurement data (similar draft, trim, weather) Trim at normal operations

ECO-Assistant optimized trim

Nominal propeller-curve

-

Engine power could be reduced48.0

-3%

46.5

This translates

into fuel saving equals 270t HFO

Fuel saving of 3% verif ied by shaft

Test conditionsRPM @ speed: 82 (~78%) @ ~15 kn

Data: In test (blue 2010-05-26,16-24h), after test phase (red 2010-05-28, 14-22h)

,



20/28


Trim Adjustment using GLs ECO-AssistantFleet of 3 hull-sister container ships 2850 TEU



21/28


Reference Case:Trim Adjustment at Bulk carrier using GLs ECO-Assistant

SAVINGS OVER 5 MONTHS: 81t @ 650$/t or 52600S$



22/28


Trim Adjustment at Bulk carrier using GLs ECO-Assistant

SAVINGS OVER 5 MONTHS: 62t @ 650$/t or 40300.00$



23/28


Trim Adjustment at Bulk carrier using GLs ECO-Assistant

SAVINGS OVER 5 MONTHS: 140t @ 650$/t = 93000.00US$



24/28


If you are:

e ques on .... a s n or me ere

OWNER your ship consumes less fuelyou have a competitive advantage

CHARTERER

.

You pay less for fuel,

A competitive advantage

OPERATOR Competitive advantage,Owners prefer operators runningshi s more effectivel



25/28


....Re-engine your ship with dual Fuel: HFO and LNG

THE GL Classed chemical Tanker BIT VIKING

Particulars

DWT 24783MT

.

B 26.30m

Cubic capacity 27310cu.m 98%

Main Engines 2x WAERTSILA 6L46B 5850kWClassed GL +100A5 E3 ESP IW NAW OC Chemical Tanker Type 2 GF

GL Register 111552



26/28


Have you thought about LNG?



27/28


o,What do next?

Easy.... Lets talk! Call us! ,

We have solutions for you!

Proven, solid and real

o more c c en or egg quest onsLets make chicken-omelettes

(J ohn Hartle , Waertsila Americas)



28/28

For more Information andinquiries please contact

Harry Vordokas

Bus. Development Manager,,Re ion Americas

GERMANISCHER LLOYD

303 S. Broadway, Ste 460

Tarrytown, NY 10561, USA

T: +1.914.3666606

C: +1.786.5430516

a :

[email protected]

[email protected]


gl - energy savings in ship operations - solutions, experiences (2011)

Documents