Container Ship - How to reduce effect on Climate and Pollution

DK Group
One ship pollutes as much
as 50 million cars
by Jørn P. Winkler, founder

1 ©2008 DK GROUP NETHERLANDS BV ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Legal notice
Disclaimer
This presentation contains forward-looking statements as of the date of such statements. Such forward
looking statements involved known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other fars which may cause the
actual results, financial conditions, performance or achievements of the company, or industry results, to be
materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such
forward-looking statements.

Given these uncertainties, any person to whom the current presentation is addressed is cautioned not to
place any undue reliance on such forward-looking statements and to review and analyse the same with its
legal, financial and economic advisors. Such forward-looking statement therefore do not constitute in any
manner an undertaking and/or commitment or guarantee as to the future business of the Company.


DK Group and Danish Green Ship of the Future


“The time of half-measure
has passed. We are
entering a period of
consequences”

- Winston Churchill


Presentation overview
1 Shipping's emission legacy
2 SOx and NOx reduction
3 CO2 reduction
4 The Air Cavity System
5 Major emissions reductions
6 New builds and new technologies
7 Shipping vs. Aviation
8 Conclusion: Shipping can lead the way
Q&A


Shipping’s emission legacy

1. Shipping's emission legacy



A reality check for shipping
• In 2007 it was established that the maritime industry
accounted for emission of approx. 1,2 billion metric tons
of CO2 annually. This is based on the present world wide
fleet (1st quarter 2007). This is almost 100% higher than
earlier estimates.
• Latest figures indicates that the shipping industry will be
responsible for emitting at least 1.5 billion metric tons of
CO2 annually by 2010 and in 2015 the annual emissions
will be substantially over 2 billion ton. This is 67% more
than today’s emission.
• On top of these figures the maritime industry will emit 20
million tons of SOx and 37 million tons of NOx annually.
These emissions will increase just as drastically as CO2-
emissions.
• There is a massive new building program underway, and
in the next 20-25 years we will have these ships on the
oceans. Should they be build without using well known The Guardian,
13 February 20
technology? 08



60.000 death’s annually
• A study published in the American Chemical Society journal Environmental Science and
Technology by James Corbett (et al) in November 2007 shows, that shipping is responsible
for 60,000 premature deaths a year.
• For a long time there has been a perception that because ship emissions are out in the
ocean, then they doesn't really affect anyone on land, but as this study shows - this is clearly
false.
• The report did not take into account additional health impacts such as bronchitis and
asthma. It is also estimated the toll of premature deaths in North America, mostly on the
West Coast, as numbering 9,000 per year.
• The report said the 60,000 premature death’s a year were from heart and lung-related
cancers. Corbett predicted the number could rise by 40% in the next five years because of an
increase in shipping activity.
• US Lawyers will not wait for long before they act. Ship owners should NOT forget that they are
under US law when in port.



Where will these deaths occur?

Corbett, J. J.; Winebrake, J. J.; Green, E. H.; Kasibhatla, P.; Eyring, V.; Lauer, A., Mortality from Ship Emissions: A Global Assessment. Environmental Science & Technology 2007,41, (24), 8512–8518



60% of the world’s bee population is dead

• It’s not only humans that are dying from the
effects of pollution. 60% of the worlds bees are
already dead.
• Commercial beehives pollinate over a third of
the worlds crops and that web of nourishment
encompasses everything from fruits like
peaches, apples, cherries, strawberries and
more
• Without this pollination those crops would be
history - to say nothing of the honey bees
produce or the flowers they also fertilize

If the bees are dying – what is happening to
the fish and other marine life?



Ship emissions harms the oceans
• Cecilie Mauritzen, a senior scientist of the climate division of Norwegian
Meteorological Institute, says emissions from ships that are far from land
cannot be ignored.
• According to Mauritzen, small particles, or particulate matter, carried in ships'
exhaust gases scatter and absorb solar and thermal radiation, indirectly
changing cloud properties. ''These aerosols have a cooling effect on the earth,
in that they reflect incoming shortwave radiation from the sun,'' Mauritzen told
Bunkerworld on November 8, 2007.
Cecilie Maurti
tzen
• The cooling effect might sound positive, given concern about global warning,
but Mauritzen said the aerosols were having a damaging impact. The
particulate matter carrying aerosols did not reach as far into the atmosphere,
and typically rained out after just a day or two, sending the particles into the
oceans, she explained.
• In shipping lanes, she said, ship after ship was emitting the aerosols,
contributing to an almost constant presence of particles in the atmosphere
close to the lanes. One impact was to increase rainfall in the area of the lanes,
which in turn sent larger volume of particles into the oceans.



Concentration in global shipping lanes

Corbett, J. J.; Winebrake, J. J.; Green, E. H.; Kasibhatla, P.; Eyring, V.; Lauer, A., Mortality from Ship Emissions: A Global
Assessment. Environmental Science & Technology 2007,41, (24), 8512–8518

• In the global shipping lanes ship emissions are • Could the early discharge of rainwater over
contributing to an almost constant presence of shipping lanes, which Cecilie Mauritzen found, be
particles in the atmosphere close to the lanes the cause of the severe draughts seen on land?



Jellyfish population explosion warning

• Off the Northern Ireland coast a 10 mile wide, 13 meter
deep swarm of jellyfish attacked a salmon farm wiping out
over £1million worth of stock.
• Billions of small jellyfish, known as Mauve Stingers, flooded
into the cages about a mile into the Irish Sea, off Glenarm
Bay and Cushendun.
• Swimming bans were imposed at beaches across the
Mediterranean because of an influx of stinging jellyfish
along coastlines from Spain to Sicily.
• The Red Cross organizations across the Mediterranean
region treated 50,000 people for stings in the summer of
2008, almost triple the figure for the previous year.



Soot-infused snow responsible for Arctic warming

• Researchers at the University of California, Irvine, believe
that while the threat of greenhouse emissions exists, soot-
infused or dirty snow also contributes majorly to global
warming.
• According to Charlie Zender, an Associate Professor of
Earth System Science at the UCI and co-author of the study,
dirty snow contributes to a third or more of Arctic warming.
• SECA’s are not enough. Earth could be headed for
catastrophic sea level rise in the next few centuries if SOx &
NOx pollution at sea continue at present levels.



Shipping pollutes as much as 195 billion cars
In other words; Shipping
is by far the biggest
transport polluter in the
world compared to road-
and air transport.

*Beginning in 1990 the sulphur in diesel fuel for cars has been steadily and drastically reduced from 5.000
PPM to reach 50 PPM now and a further reduction to 10 PPM (same as 0,001%) in 2009.


The hypocrisy of shipping
• A 20 foot container (1 TEU)
shipped from Shanghai to
Hamburg emits 37 kilos of
sulphur. This is the same as
3.950 cars emit at the same
time.
• A whole ship at 8.000 TEU
sailing from from Shanghai
to Hamburg, emits as much
sulphur as 31,6 million cars
emits during its 28 days at
sea.
• This means that only 24 of
8.000 TEU containerships
emit as much sulphur, as
the entire world wide car
fleet.


SOx and NOx reduction

2. SOx and NOx reduction



Distillates vs. Scrubbers
• Scrubbers will reduce SOx by 99% NOx and particulate matter by 85%. Distillates will reduce SOx by
80% and particulate matter by 35%.
• The cost of introducing Distillates is estimated to USD 250 billion or more and it will take 20 years
to implement. And where will we make 382 (IMO own conservative figure for 2020) million tons of
Distillates? Where is the Refinery capacity to do this?
• CO2 levels from Refining 382 million tons of Distillates would rise by 20%.
• With sestillates ship owners will end up paying from 1100 $ or more per ton fuel. Why do this when
they can stay at USD 560$ with a scrubber?
• Using todays prices the industry is paying USD 200 billion per year for fuel. A switch to destillates
would boost that to USD 400 billion. An extra USD 200 billion per year.
• Retro-Fitting the existing Commercial Fleet of over 25.000 dwt would take only 5 years and cost
approx. USD 50 billion. All wiith no rise in CO2 levels and no rise in Global fuel prices due to change
of fuel.

Why should we pay USD 250 billion for distillates when we can have scrubbing for USD 50 Billion
which will cover 99% and take only 5 years to implement as a more effective measure against SO?



Evolution of oil products consumption 1971-2005

*Includes LPG,
©OECD/IEA 2007 NGL, ethane


Future evolution of oil products consumption

67%
4,5% 56%
29%
8%

2015 2020 2025
2005 2010

Provided present oil production *Includes LPG,
NGL, ethane


Scrubbing installed
Example:
• Cape Size Bulk Container

• 18MW scrubber main engine fitted
into the funnel

• Main propulsion, auxiliary & boiler



Increased fuel costs vs. scrubber costs


CO2 reduction

3. CO2 reduction


CO2 reduction

Voluntary vs. mandatory measures
• Emission reduction
measures according to
the IMO BLG report
released December
2007


CO2 reduction

Using technology to reduce emissions
Containerships
• Propeller technology Tanker vessels
– Contra rotating propellers
– Twin propellers – twin engines USD 45m+ USD 40m+
5,500 TEU
Panamax
– Propeller Boss Fin Cap
– High-effeciency propellers USD 60m+ USD
3,500 TEU
• Heat recovery system 110m+
Suezmax 8,000 TEU
• Block co-efficient. Handymax
• Air Cavity System - reducing the Aframax USD USD 7,000 TEU
1,700 TEU
friction resistance of the hull. 120m 150m+
VLCC 10,000 TEU+
• Other design modifications.
VLBC LNG

USD USD
95m 215m
Handymax LPG
Capesize

Gas vessels
Bulk carriers USD 90m+
USD
60m
Panamax

USD 30m+


CO2 reduction

Propeller technology
Contra Rotating Propellers
Twin-propellers – twin engines

10 % improvement depending on relation
Reduces fuel burn by 5% to 10%
between main engine and thruster

High-efficiency propellers
Propeller Boss Fin Cap
(Kappel)

Fuel saving up to approximately 4% Fuel saving up to approximately 4%


CO2 reduction

Heat recovery system
Fuel saving 7-12% depending on sophistication of the heat recovery plant


CO2 reduction

Reducing block co-efficient

Vessel type Block co-efficient CO2 reduction
Lighter 0.90 5-10%
Bulk carrier 0.80-0.85 12-17%
Tanker 0.80-0.85 12-16%
General cargo 0.55-0.75 13-22%
Containership 0.50-0.70 14-26%

Example:
115,000 dwt AFRAMAX tanker with a lightweight of
18,900 tons.
• Increasing the lightweight by 15% (2,900 ton
steel at USD 8.7 mill) would reduce fuel burn by 4,200 ton per
year
• This adds up to USD 1.5 mill. annually or USD 30 mill. over 20
years
• The Co2 reduction amounts to 12,600 ton per
year or 252,000 ton over a period of 20 years


The Air Cavity System

4. The Air Cavity System



Weight increase: Marginal to a traditional vessel

Additional Shell Plating
Additional Floor Plating
Area equivalent to basis vessel



Case Study: 280,000 DWT VLCC
Principal Dimensions
Length over all 333.30 m
Length between pp 318.00 m
Breadth, moulded 59.90 m
Depth, moulded 32.10 m
Design draught 21.06 m

Speed, service, 15 % s.m. 15.9 kn
Propulsion power, 85 % MCR: ~21.000 kW
Fuel consumption: 90 t/day

ACS area
Consumables
9,000 m2
Heavy fuel oil 8600 m3
Marine diesel oil 375 m3
Lubricating oil 300 m3
Fresh water 500 m3
Ballast water 99,000 m3

Cargo capacity
Cargo tanks 1 to 5, P+S 340,000 m3
Slop tanks P+S 10,100 m3

Deadweight
Deadweight at design draught
with air in cavity: 283,125 t



Air supply system
• Double air compressors – 2 x 5.000 m3/h @ 2.2 bar delivery
• Common air feed pipe / redundant distribution system
• Air supply rate to cavity, normal operational conditions: 1.500 m3/h
• Power consumption at normal operational conditions: 150 kW

ACS area
9,000 m2




Pe (kW)
Tank Test result of Effective Power at Design Speed
Speed and power (HSVA full-scale extrapolation)

• Speed and power curve 14000
~ 0.4 knot
for reference vessel (A)
vs. ACS vessel (B) 12000

• No sea margin included
~ 15 %
10000

8000

6000

4000

BASIS VLCC
2000 ACS VLCC

Speed (kn)
0
6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0


ACS Demonstrator

ACS Demonstrator

2,550 DWT, 83 m LOA



ACS Demonstrator sea trial
• Sea trials conducted with and without ACS
• FORCE and Germanischer Lloydperformed sea trials in
accordance with standard procedures
• ACS demonstrator tests to included:
– Speed trials in calm water
– Speed tests in waves
– Maneuvering tests
• Environmental conditions of waves and ocean
documented by wave buoy.
• Based on the sea trial data with ACS, the scaling
procedure for ACS will be made and reliable results for
large ocean-going ships will be made.


Major emissions reductions

5. Major emissions reductions



• According to a report from IMO’s Technology Maximum fuel savings
subcommittee on bulk liquids and gases
Propeller technology:
(BLG) published in December 2007, a
Contra rotating propellers 10%
10% reduction in fuel burn for existing
Twin propellers – twin engines 5-10%
ships and 30-40% or more for new
Propeller Boss Fin Cap 4%
buildings are achievable
High-efficiency propellers 4%
• ACS combined with other technologies Heat recovery system 8%
can reduce shipping's CO2 emissions
TODAY by a minimum of 10% to a Block co-efficient. 15-25%
maximum of 50% depending on vessel
Air Cavity System - reducing the friction 15%
type. resistance of the hull.
Speed reduction 30%

Other design modifications. 10%

Total for bulker and tankers 50%
Total for containerships 36%



Fuel burn reduction on a 12.000 TEU containership
Reducing fuel burn on a 12.000 TEU
containership by 20%

Assuming current new build price:
USD 175 million US.

Assuming fuel cost:
USD 560 pr ton.

Currently Savings

Per day Annually Over 20 years

Fuel burn 380 tons pr day 76 tons 29.680 tons 59.4 million tons

In USD USD 171.000 per day USD 42.560 USD 11.9 million USD 238 million

CO2-emssion 1.216 tons of CO2 pr. day 243 tons 68.040 tons 1.36 million tons



We need Western innovation at Asian costs
• Moving ship building to Asia may have gotten
ship owners vessels at a lower cost, but the
innovation traditionally embedded in western
shipbuilding was lost in the process.

• For generations shipbuilding skills has been
refined by European & US shipbuilders resulting
in more and more efficient ship designs.

• For hundreds of years they western shipmakers
have succeeded in annually making more
efficient ships for shipowners to race other
shipowners

• The maritime industry needs to get back on the
innovation track for the sake of the environment,
public health, global economy and their own
shareholders.

• There is nothing that prevents Western
innovation at Asian costs.


Mega-boxship rush
• Asian shipyards have adapted to new
’mega-designs’, but have repeatedly stated
that new ‘environmental’ technology
designs are ‘unrealistic’

• How is this possible, when in six months,
Asian shipyards have adapted technology to
build ships as much as twice as big as ever
before – 250 meters to 450 meters

• Asian shipyards are among the most
technologically advanced in the world


New builds and new…

6. New builds and new technologies



3.693 new builds in the book
• There are currently 3.692 orders for new ocean-going
vessels the in excess of 150 meters on the books of
shipbuilders – just for the coming 3 years - 2008-2010

• Taking average fuel burn figures for these 3.692 vessels
(mainly bulk carriers, containerships andt ankers) those
vessels alone will burn more than 63 million metric tons
of bunker fuel per year – generating 202 million tons of
CO2, 3,3 million tons of SOx and 6,2 tons of NOx per year.
These ships alone will increase present emission by 16%
- in 3 years only.

• During these vessels total lifespan of estimated 20 years,
it will result in emission of 4 billion tons of CO2, 66
million tons of SOx and 124 million tons of NOx.

• Because these vessels have no equipment installed
(Scrubbers) to reduce SOx, this would mean the same as
launching a staggering 29 billion new cars or - 39 times
the total world car fleet of 750 million cars



Environmental savings on new builds
• ACS and other technologies can
All figures in Annually Over 20 years
significantly reduce CO2, SOx and NOx metric ton
emissions from new builds.
CO2 60,6 mill. 1,2 billion
• A minimum emission reduction of 30% is
NOx 1,86 mill. 37 mill.
recognised by IMO in its BLG report from
December 2007 though the various
SOx 1 mill. 20 mill.
technical measures are described as
‘voluntary’.

• Introducing scrubbing would reduce NOx
and SOx BY 98& and 99% respectively
equalling the removal of 29 billion cars
from the worlds roads.



Cost savings on new builds
If all 3.692 new builds on order were fitted with technologies recognized in the IMO BLOG report, saving
30% of fuel, operating costs could be lowered significantly.
19 million ton of fuel at USD 560 per tonne equals an annual saving of USD 10.6 billion per year or USD
212 billion over 20 years. And this is only for new builds produced in the next 3 years.

How can shipping say that the environment doesn’t pay?
One scrubber (reducing SOx by 99%) would cost less than $1.5 million - or equivalent to less than 15
days of vessel charter. So far only equipped on 1 ship. Existing ‘denox’ systems can remove NOx by 95%
but only equipped on 20 ships.



Will they say no to $200 billion in cost savings?

If all 3.692 new builds on order, would follow the IMO Voluntary reduction of 30-40%, 10 billion USD could be saved
annually in the current new building program.

How can shipping say that charters and banks don’t care about losses of over 200 billion over 20 years?


Shipping vs. aviation

7. Shipping vs. aviation




• Shipping investors looking at the numbers of new
builds on order and rising oil prices must question
why shipping companies are not investing in new
technologies that can save millions of dollars, as the
aviation industry has.

• Boeing unveiled the 777 Dreamliner plane to great
applause because it will reduce fuel consumption
and CO2 emission by 20%

• The Boeing 747/8 is an revamped design on the old
jumbo that has slashed CO2 emissions by 15% in
under 3 years

• Boeing boasts record orders as the likes of Virgin
Atlantic look to provide savings as airlines look to
reduce CO2 emissions by 30%.



What can be done now? Wing tips & propellers

• Danish airline Sterling has introduced wing
tips – saving 4% fuel costs and CO2.

• High-efficiency ship propellers (eg. Kappel
blades) have been available for 20 years but
not used

• The blades could save 4% fuel and CO2
equaling 48 million ton per year

• This could be translated into saving 16 mill.
ton of bunker fuel at USD 5.6 billion annually

Kappel Blade: 4% fuel saving


Conclusion

8. Conclusion: Shipping can lead the way


Conclusion

Conclusion
• Voluntary recommendations from IMO BLG reducing CO2 emissions by 30-40% report should
be made mandatory

• There is little time available to address the issue of climate change and air pollution

• Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in the world emitting as much as 260 time
more SOx than all the worlds cares put together

• Mandatory SCRUBBER Retro FIT program for ships with more than 10 years of life.

• Technologies are widely available NOW..!

• Shipping needs to look at the aviation industry where fuel costs and Co2, NOx and
SOxsavings through ingenuity are encouraged and heavily financed

• “SEABUS” Large scale Ship building has to be moved back to the EU & US over the next 20
year, making environmental & efficient ships based on and protected by IP.

• We ask you to incorporate ACS and other fuel efficiency and scrubbing technologies into
state, federal and international regulations.


Q&A

Thank you for your attention
“We are using the knowledge
we already have to make a
difference. That is our duty.
What is yours?”

- DK Group Founder
Jørn P. Winkler


Container Ship - How to reduce effect on Climate and Pollution

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Container Ship - How to reduce effect on Climate and Pollution

Similar to Container Ship - How to reduce effect on Climate and Pollution (20)

More from Glenn Klith Andersen

More from Glenn Klith Andersen (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Container Ship - How to reduce effect on Climate and Pollution