Advertisement

Journal of Marine Science and Application

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 335–340 | Cite as

Operational options for green ships

  • Salma Sherbaz
  • Wenyang Duan
Research Paper

Abstract

Environmental issues and rising fuel prices necessitate better energy-efficiency in all sectors. The shipping industry is one of the major stakeholders, responsible for 3% of global CO2 emissions, 14%–15% of global NO X emissions, and 16% of global SO X emissions. In addition, continuously rising fuel prices are also an incentive to focus on new ways for better energy-effectiveness. The green ship concept requires exploring and implementing technology on ships to increase energy-efficiency and reduce emissions. Ship operation is an important topic with large potential to increase cost-and-energy-effectiveness. This paper provided a comprehensive review of basic concepts, principles, and potential of operational options for green ships. The key challenges pertaining to ship crew i.e. academic qualifications prior to induction, in-service training and motivation were discussed. The author also deliberated on remedies to these challenges.

Keywords

green ship ship operational efficiency weather routing slow steaming trim optimization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ballou P, Chen H, Horner JD (2008). Advanced methods of optimizing ship operations to reduce emissions detrimental to climate change. OCEANS 2008, Quebec, Canada, 1–12.Google Scholar
  2. Bilgen S, Keleş S, Kaygusuz A, Sarı A, Kaygusuz K (2008). Global warming and renewable energy sources for sustainable development: A case study in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(2), 372–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bode S, Isensee J, Krause K, Michaelowa A (2002). Climate policy: analysis of ecological, technical and economic implications for international maritime transport. International Journal of Maritime Economics, 4, 164–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broersma G, Tasseron K (1967). Propeller maintenance, propeller efficiency and blade roughness. International Shipbuilding Progress, 14, 347–356.Google Scholar
  5. Brønmo G, Nygreen B, Lysgaard J (2010). Column generation approaches to ship scheduling with flexible cargo sizes. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(1), 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buhaug Ø, Corbett JJ, Endresen Ø, Eyring V, Faber J, Hanayama S, Lee DS, Lee D, Lindstad H, Mjelde A, Pålsson C, Wanquing W, Winebrake JJ, Yoshida K (2009). Second IMO GHG study. International Maritime Organization (IMO), London, UK, 1–40, 46–51, 185–200.Google Scholar
  7. Callow ME (1996). Ship-fouling: the problem and method of control. Biodeterioration Abstracts, 10, 411–421.Google Scholar
  8. Cariou P (2011). Is slow steaming a sustainable means of reducing CO2 emissions from container shipping? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16, 260–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper DA (2003). Exhaust emissions from ships at berth. Atmospheric Environment, 37, 3817–3830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corbett JJ, Wangb H, Winebrake JJ (2009). The effectiveness and costs of speed reductions on emissions from international shipping. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14(8), 593–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EIA (2010). International energy outlook report. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington DC, USA, 10–20.Google Scholar
  12. Endresen Ø, Sørgård E, Behrens HL, Brett PO, Isaksen ISA (2007). A historical reconstruction of ships’ fuel consumption and emissions. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, D12301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eyring V, Köhler HW, Lauer A, Lemper B (2005). Emissions from international shipping: 2. Impact of future technologies on scenarios until 2050. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, D17306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faber J, Freund M, Köpke M, Nelissen D (2010). Going slow to reduce emissions. Seas at Risk, Delft, Netherlands, 6–29.Google Scholar
  15. Fossen TI (1994). Guidance and control of ocean vehicles. John Wiley & Sons, Somerset, USA, 50–140.Google Scholar
  16. Green EH, Winebrake JJ, Corbett JJ (2008). Opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from ships. Energy and Environmental Research Associates, New York, USA, IMO MEPC 58 (MEPC 58/INF.21).Google Scholar
  17. Grigson CWB (1982). Propeller roughness, its nature and its effect upon the drag coefficients of blades and ship power. Transactions of RINA, 124, 227–242.Google Scholar
  18. Hansen H, Freund M (2010). Assistance tools for operational fuel efficiency. Conference on Computer and IT Applications in the Maritime Industries (COMPIT), Gubbio, Italy, 356–366.Google Scholar
  19. Hearn GE, Wright PNH (1999). Design for optimal hydrodynamic operation of large container ships. RINA International Conference on Design and Operation of Container Ships, London, UK, 5–13.Google Scholar
  20. Hsu CI, Hsieh YP (2007). Routing, ship size, and sailing frequency decision-making for a maritime hub-and-spoke container network. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 45(7/8), 899–916.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. International Maritime Organization (2009). Guidelines for voluntary use of the ship energy efficiency operational indicator (EEOI). International Maritime Organization (IMO), London, UK, MEPC.1/Circ.684.Google Scholar
  22. Kollamthodi S, Brannigan C, Harfoot M, Skinner I, Whall C, Lavric L, Noden R, Lee D, Buhaug Ø, Maritnussen K, Skejic R, Valberg I, Brembo JC, Eyring V, Faber J (2008). Greenhouse gas emissions from shipping: trends, projections and abatement potential. Final report, Committee on Climate Change (CCC), AEA/ED43808, Issue 4, Didcot, UK, 40–55.Google Scholar
  23. Korkut E, Atlar M (2009). An Experimental Study into the effect of foul release coating on the efficiency, noise and cavitation characteristics of a propeller. First International Symposium on Marine Propulsors, Trondheim, Norway, 285–293.Google Scholar
  24. Le MD (2000). Online estimation of ship steering dynamics and its application in designing an optimal autopilot. Proceedings of IFAC Computer Aided Control System Design (CACSD), 1, 7–12.Google Scholar
  25. Majumdar P, Lee E, Patel N, Stafslien SJ, Daniels J, Chisholm BJ (2008). Development of environmentally friendly, antifouling coatings based on tethered quaternary ammonium salts in a crosslinked polydimethylsiloxane matrix. Journal of Coatings Technology and Research, 5(4), 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nguyen TH, Nguyen KB, Nguyen TMH, Cut XT, Nguyen VP (2004). Study on an effective adaptive autopilot for ships. IEEE International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies (ISClT), Sapporo, Japan, 2, 919–922.Google Scholar
  27. Nikitakos NV, Fikaris GN (2009). Autopilot adjustment using CBR. International Journal of Ocean Systems Management, 1(2), 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Safarianova S, Noembrini F, Boulouchos K, Dietrich P (2011). Techno-economic analysis of low-GHG emission marine vessels. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland, 10–25.Google Scholar
  29. Schack C (2010). Green ship of the future presentation. Green Ship of the Future Conference, Asia Pacific Maritime, Singapore.Google Scholar
  30. Skerman TM (1960). Ship-fouling in New Zealand waters: A survey of marine fouling organisms from vessels of the coastal and overseas trades. New Zealand Journal of Science, 3(4), 620–648.Google Scholar
  31. Skjølsvik KO, Andersen AB, Corbett JJ, Skjelvik JM (2000). Study of greenhouse gas emissions from ships. International Maritime Organization, MARINTEK, Trondheim, Norway, Issue 2, 10–25, 90–130.Google Scholar
  32. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (2007). Fourth assessment report of intergovernmental panel on climate change: The AR4 synthesis report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and NewYork, USA, 60–70.Google Scholar
  33. Wärtsilä (2008). Boosting energy efficiency. Energy Efficiency Catalogue, Helsinki, Finland, 52–61.Google Scholar
  34. Williams B (2010). Complying with emission control areas: Practical realities. Presentation at Sustainable Shipping Conference, Miami, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Shipbuilding EngineeringHarbin Engineering UniversityHarbinChina

Personalised recommendations