"The illusion of fuel savings - an urgent need for improved transparency in marine hull coatings"

Transcription

1 "The illusion of fuel savings - an urgent need for improved transparency in marine hull coatings" Bjørn Wallentin Global Sales Director Hull Performance Solutions Jotun AS, Norway Page 1 /

2 Abstract The general market trend is that a given vessels fuel consumption will gradually increase throughout the docking cycle even with the best antifoulings/frc s in the market. Knowing this, why do we even talk about fuel savings in the same sentences as paint products applied to the vessels hull? The answer to the above is as simple as it is complex fuel savings sends positive buying signals while reduced loss in performance will easily be perceived as negative. The above fuel saving focus in combination with the MEPC 62 decision on EEDI (Energy Efficiency Design Index) and upcoming mandatory measurements of the release of CO2 has released a number of marketing efforts creating an illusion of fuel savings related to the application of specific underwater hull coatings. Jotun has taken an active position to refocus on true hull performance through a transparent method that allows for hull performance assessment through onboard automatically logged data. Further, if indexes like the EEDI are the way forward, we should aim for those that reflect true performance not theoretically possible performance. This because the biggest potential in reducing fuel consumption and emissions lies within the existing fleet of vessels incentives to reduce their carbon foot print by using higher quality antifoulings, proven by a fully transparent hull performance monitoring method, would have immediate positive financial and environmental effects. Picture 1: The removal of a hull coating system by full blast (SA 2.5), courtesy Alexander Enstrøm, Jotun "The illusion of fuel savings - an urgent need for improved transparency in marine hull coatings" Page 2 / 10

3 The Illusion The environment and how all our actions influence the planet we inhabit are all around us every day. We meet it in newspapers, on television, on signboards and also from our children as they teach us how not to waste water while brushing our teeth. We are faced with lack of agreement/action from the UN Copenhagen summit in 2009 and Cancun in 2010 for global environmental improvements, while individual countries and local authorities take a much tougher approach to improve/reduce their environmental impact and carbon footprint. This is the situation and we cannot as individuals avoid being influenced by this massive amount of information and pressure. The global focus on the negative effects of increasing emission of Green House Gases (GHG) is one of the key issues on the agenda for the marine environment protection committee (MEPC) and other organizations within the marine industry. For the year 2007, shipping was estimated to have emitted 3.3% of global CO 2 emissions, to which international shipping contributed 2.7%, or 870 million tonnes 1. Vessel owners and operators do take responsibility and many have clear environmental policies well communicated throughout their organization. As a positive consequence of this focus, the whole marine value chain has been developing solutions that aim to reduce the emissions. This covers the whole range of products from new vessel designs and use of other types of fuels, through to more efficient coating systems for the underwater hull. There actually seems to be an unlimited number of fuel saving devices, that if they all worked as promised, would combined, allow the vessels to operate with no emissions what so ever. Something must obviously be wrong, some of these technologies cannot possibly perform as promised but how to select the ones that do? A vessels fuel consumption needed for propulsion is far from a static figure. Throughout a docking cycle the consumption will vary from day to day depending on vessel speed, weather, currents, fouling, fuel quality, engine etc. However, the general market trend is that a given vessels fuel consumption will gradually increase throughout the docking cycle even with the best hull performance solutions in the market. This negative performance development is strongly affected by the quality of the antifouling system selected and the extent of mechanical damage experienced. Reduced fuel consumption is the key to reduced emissions. However, in our quest to develop products, solutions and regulations to meet this requirement, the paint industry and partly also the legislative parties, have taken several wrong turns Bjørn Wallentin, Jotun Instead of developing a performance index that reflects the actual vessels performance, tools have been developed to compare how vessels could theoretically perform with the basis in vessel data from new build. An example of this is the Energy Efficiency Design Index 2 (EEDI) developed to put focus on improving the performance of new builds. We consider this to be a good example of a typical TIME ZERO perspective (initial/perfect condition and not representative to actual long term environmental performance). Operational improvements, were better antifoulings is one of the key factors, would offer considerable contributions to reducing the emissions from the current fleet of merchant vessels, but this is not reflected/covered by the implementation of the EEDI. "The illusion of fuel savings - an urgent need for improved transparency in marine hull coatings" Page 3 / 10

4 The marine coating industry has adapted to this TIME ZERO perspective by offering new biocide free hull coating that are initially very smooth, thus contributing to a higher initial vessel speed or lower use of power/fuel (v ref. see below equation). However, based on analysis of real life data we can identify an additional long term fuel penalty as a result of a more dense slime and animal fouling on these biocide free technologies compared to the high quality biocide containing products. Initiatives to improve the fuel/environmental performance of the new fleet of vessels are of course very positive, but the positive effect on the environment would be much higher if an index like the Energy Efficiency Operational Index (EEOI) was agreed upon (see figure 1). EEDI - New Fleet Time Zero (2012) 2020 Figure 1: The impact on the fuel consumption/environment from EEDI vs EEOI. The larger arrow indicating the potential environmental impact of the two initiatives. SFOC: Specific fuel oil consumption Installed power: main engine [kw] C Carbon: a conversion factor between type of fuel and CO 2 based on fuel carbon content Capacity: deadweight, gross tonnage, TEU etc Vref: vessel speed (knots) at sea trial Observing the above simplified formula for calculation of EEDI we can easily conclude that an increase in v ref will contribute to a lower, and improved, EEDI. In general the above equation promotes a smooth hull (v ref ), propelled by a small engine (installed power) running on LNG (C carbon ). This seems however sadly, to have little relevance with regards to the vessel performance and fuel consumption beyond the sea trials at the new-building stage. The most efficient way to reduce the emissions is to maintain a clean and smooth hull in service between the dockings. "The illusion of fuel savings - an urgent need for improved transparency in marine hull coatings" Page 4 / 10

5 Significant fuel savings, in the range of 5-10%, are promised by most marine paint makers, especially in relation to their biocide free hull coatings how is this possible? Jotun s conclusion is that the answer to why these 5-10% fuel savings statements are made lies within the reference used, or lack of such. By this we would like to draw the attention to the conditions under which most of the biocide free systems are sold and applied. Biocide free hull paint systems are normally perceived as quite expensive and to apply these on top of an aging primer system does not make sense with the long lifetime they are designed to last. For that reason most, if not all, hulls/sections are fully blasted down to steel prior to the application of the new coating system. The owner/operator will then normally select a vessel in their fleet in the correct age range being already scheduled for such surface preparation, regardless of paint system selected. This would normally be years from new-build with an underwater paint system that is quite rough from several dockings with spot blasting and repairs. So the full blast will bring the hull condition from the worst to the very best, from rough and possibly fouled to very smooth and clean. We know that the improvement in fuel consumption from this surface preparation can be in the range from 25-40%, depending on the condition prior to dry-docking. With this in mind and the fact that the above fuel saving for the biocide free hull systems are, in many cases, guaranteed for only one (1) year after docking, it is quite simple to understand how 5-10% fuel savings can be guaranteed. Even in our performance analysis linked to the positive effects on fuel consumption originating from a maintenance repair docking we see positive effects in the range of 20% improved fuel performance. The below figure 2 shows an example on how fuel savings often are proven by measurements of fuel oil consumption in a period just before (blue markers and line) and just after (red markers and line) a docking 3. Significant savings are achieved, but at this point it is easy to forget the fact that surface preparation by full blasting in dock has always contributed to significant reductions in fuel oil consumption. In the below example the savings from the surface preparation resulted in as much as a 22% fuel saving. However, the full positive effect of the docking was also lost within the first 2 years in service. This can be seen in the figure where the fuel consumption is back up to approx. 180 kg/nm in July 2010 the same level as just before docking summer "The illusion of fuel savings - an urgent need for improved transparency in marine hull coatings" Page 5 / 10

6 Figure 2: Prem Divya fuel oil consumption normalized to 14 knots (kg/nm) pre- and post-ffr application 2 Have we just created an illusion based on what we wanted the above theoretical example to prove, or is it based on solid facts? That is one of the vital questions that the reader should ask him or her-self. The irony is that customers, academics and also environmental bodies are lead to believe that the biocide free products have no negative effects on the environment. Paint makers have built this image by statement focusing on how much CO 2 could have been saved if all vessels used their technology. Jotun is of the firm belief that many customers now realize that this is far from founded on operational experience and that the individual vessels fuel consumption actually has a significant larger increase with the biocide free than with most quality biocide containing products. This increase in fuel consumption is mostly due to the light and dense slime forming on the surface without the vessel being able to remove it during its operation. When we observe that large container vessels are unable to benefit from today s versions of the biocide free technologies then it is hard to imagine what trade, speed and type of vessel that could have fuel saving benefits. "The illusion of fuel savings - an urgent need for improved transparency in marine hull coatings" Page 6 / 10

7 Improved methods to analyze hull performance There are a numerous methods available in the market for analyzing fuel performance, but few measure and analyze hull performance. To reduce fuel consumption and subsequent emissions, fuel performance is of course the prime focus, but the largest gain to this is achieved by improving the hull performance. There is an average 15% fuel improvement opportunity 4 in the improvement of hull performance by better antifoulings. This potential is available also to the existing fleet of vessels, offering the majority of the short term global fuel/emission savings possible. However, in order to quantify and avoid more adaptive marketing efforts, there is a need for a global standard in hull performance measurement. Such a standard must be available to all and easily understood for the parties involved. Such a standard should aim to be: - 100% transparent (all data available, no hidden or secret calculations) - must measure hull performance and not fuel performance - must be based on automatically logged data and not a selection of "good " data - must measure performance between dockings without assigning the positive effects of surface preparation to the new hull coating applied. Fuel performance/consumption is important when fuel cost and emissions are calculated, but not when we want to measure the effect of initiatives implemented to improve the hull performance. In the case of hull performance we recommend that an approach based on speed deviation or similar is used as show in figure 3 below. The key is to use the relationship between shaft power (using rpm x torque) and another relevant, easily available parameter to monitor ship resistance. In the below case figure 3 we have used speed through water (Doppler log) as this parameter. The below baseline/market average is based on the analysis of hull performance on 32 vessels with a total of 48 sailing/docking intervals. Figure 3: Comparison of performance over 60 month sailing interval market average vs. expected SeaQuantum X200 performance and guaranteed SeaQuantum X200 performance "The illusion of fuel savings - an urgent need for improved transparency in marine hull coatings" Page 7 / 10

8 Willingness to invest in better fuel/environmental performance "If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it" Lord Kelvin ( ) In the case of hull performance the statement of Lord Kelvin is highly relevant. The perhaps biggest environmental contribution to reduce the GHG emissions from the merchant fleet would be to make automatic logging of vessel data mandatory. This because it opens up for data analysis and the consequential possibility of quantifying the isolated effects of an action made to improve performance. Without such data and the ability to quantify the associated savings, it is not likely that owners/operators/charterers will make significant investments. What is possible to achieve of emission reductions by applying better hull coatings? The below figure 4 shows the timeline related to reducing ships overall CO 2 emissions as set by IMO 5. As stated earlier in this document there is an average 15% potential improvement/reduction in fuel consumption/emissions by using better hull coatings. These numbers do however, rely on full compensation of speed loss by an increase in power (if available). In today s market were almost all vessels at times operate in a modus of slow steaming, the potential is less. The potential of hull coatings with a market estimate of partly compensating, partly not compensating for the speed loss, has been estimated by Clean Shipping Coalition (CSC) 6 to be in the range of 7-10% reduction from the world shipping fleet. In other words this could contribute to almost 50% of the 2020 IMO targets - from hull coatings alone, which are seldom even mentioned when improvements to vessels environmental footprint are discussed. Figure 4: The next steps in CO 2 reductions 5 "The illusion of fuel savings - an urgent need for improved transparency in marine hull coatings" Page 8 / 10

9 Summary An illusion of fuel savings achievable from some antifouling s, especially the biocide free solutions, has been created. Without the insights into how antifouling s and biocide free products perform it is difficult to assess what is correct or not in terms of fuel saving claims. We have tried to cover some of the basics in this article, but the question to ask when fuel saving promises are made would be fuel savings compared to what? As a supplier of underwater hull fouling protection systems we have an obligation to offer the customers our performance evaluation of the proposed solution(s) and offer similar advice when solutions are suggested by our customers. The customer s and the supplier s expectations should be aligned. Another key learning point would be that when fuel savings are promised and guaranteed, the analysis/proof should be based on operational data between the dockings and NOT including the benefits of surface pretreatment in the docking procedures. Further, if indexes are the way forward, we should aim for those that reflect true performance not only theoretically possible performance. This because the biggest potential in reducing fuel consumption and emissions lies within the existing fleet of vessels incentives to reduce their carbon foot print by using higher quality antifoulings, proven by a fully transparent hull performance method, would have immediate positive financial and environmental effects. Vessel sensor data can be used to support almost any conclusion/theory, but data availability does offer the opportunity to analyze the effects of changes/modifications done to the hull/coating system if the correct data is analyzed. Incentives should be made available for all vessels to log such data. There is clearly a need for a standard method for analyzing hull performance. Jotun has developed a proposal for such a method, and is open for constructive feedback and questions from all interested parties to help tuning the data collection and analysis methods. Please visit our HPS web site to learn more about it: Bjørn Wallentin Global Sales Director, Hull Performance Solutions, Jotun Coatings 1 ICS, Shipping, World Trade and the Reduction of CO2 Emissions. International Chamber of Shipping, London, UK. 2 IMO, Interim Guidelines on the Method of Calculation of the Energy Efficiency Design Index for New Ships. Circular MEPC.1/Circ.681. International Maritime Organization, London, UK "The illusion of fuel savings - an urgent need for improved transparency in marine hull coatings" Page 9 / 10

10 3 James J. Corbett et al, Energy and GHG Emissions Savings Analysis of Fluoropolymer Foul Release Hull Coating, Energy and Environmental Research Associates, LLC, 17 February IMO, MEPC59/INF.10, Prevention of air pollution from ships, page International chamber of shipping, COP17 Durban, Shipping world trade and the reductions in CO 2 emissions 6 IMO, MEPC 63/4/8, AIR POLLUTION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY, A transparent and reliable hull and propeller performance standard, Submitted by Clean Shipping Coalition (CSC) "The illusion of fuel savings - an urgent need for improved transparency in marine hull coatings" Page 10 / 10