The World's Largest Wind Powered Vessel - Sweden's New Car Carrier

[Montanan]

Check out this energy efficient wind powered car carrier.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/o...ntl/index.html

"Oceanbird might look like a ship of the future, but it harks back to ancient maritime history -- because it's powered by the wind.
The transatlantic car carrier is being designed by Wallenius Marine, a Swedish shipbuilder, with support from the Swedish government and several research institutions.
With capacity for 7,000 vehicles, the 650 foot-long vessel is a similar size to conventional car carriers, but it will look radically different. The ship's hull is topped by five telescopic "wing sails," each 260 feet tall. Capable of rotating 360 degrees without touching each other, the sails can be retracted to 195 feet in order to clear bridges or withstand rough weather."

Colregs stand on - give way regulations applying even for this behemoth of a sailing vessel underway.

[Lepke]

My guess is that it will run with engines most of the time to deliver on the same schedule as current carriers. Otherwise the car manufacturers have a supply pipeline with more cars in inventory, meaning more money is tied up in unsold cars. According to the story, the ship will take 12 days instead of 7. And what happens in poor wind conditions?
Not saying it's not worth the effort. Just that the fuel savings won't be as great.

[Montanan]

Much slower transit will rapidly become the norm given that the International Maritime Organization has committed to a 50% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the shipping industry.

By international treaty, the fuel savings per unit of transport will be required to improve by 40% by 2030 from 2008 indexed levels and by 50% by 2050 from 2008. So yes the fuels savings will be huge.

Given that the vessels must comply with a greenhouse gas / fuel usage per unit of transport they will just slow down when the wind declines because they can't exceed the fuel / greenhouse gas budget. Now they are factoring in issues such as the safety of transit, for example to speed up to avoid a hurricane but they will not be allowed to speed their transit to just maintain a schedule, they will need to pad their schedule so as to allow for delays in transit yet arrive at the proscribed docking time as the ports obviously will have to maintain their loading and unloading schedules. The vessels will have the choice of arriving early and laying at anchor or just further slowing the transit and reducing fuel consumption. Loads of discussion going into the IMO protocols.

What does the initial IMO GHG strategy say?
The initial GHG strategy envisages, in particular, a reduction in carbon intensity of international shipping (to reduce CO2 emissions per transport work, as an average across international shipping, by at least 40% by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70% by 2050, compared to 2008); and that total annual GHG emissions from international shipping should be reduced by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008.

The seventh meeting of the Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships took place remotely (19-23 October 2020), ahead of the next Committee session, MEPC 75. The working group agreed draft new mandatory measures to cut the carbon intensity of ships, building on current mandatory energy efficiency requirements to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping. (Read more on the proposed amendments to MARPOL here). https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/P...SWG-GHG-7.aspx

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes.

The draft amendments will be forwarded to the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 75), to be held in remote session 16-20 November 2020.


FYI: In addition it is going to make for some slow pleasure cruises with fewer ports of call per time aboard by the likes of Carnival, Celebrity, Cunard, Costa, etc.

Details:

Draft new mandatory measures to cut the carbon intensity of existing ships have been agreed by an International Maritime Organization (IMO) working group. This marks a major step forward, building on current mandatory energy efficiency requirements to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping.

The proposed amendments to the MARPOL convention would require ships to combine a technical and an operational approach to reduce their carbon intensity. This is in line with the ambition of the Initial IMO GHG Strategy, which aims to reduce carbon intensity of international shipping by 40% by 2030, compared to 2008. The amendments were developed by the seventh session of the Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships (ISWG-GHG 7), held as a remote meeting 19-23 October 2020.

The draft amendments will be forwarded to the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 75), to be held in remote session 16-20 November 2020. The MEPC is the decision-making body. If approved, the draft amendments could then be put forward for adoption at the subsequent MEPC 76 session, to be held during 2021.

The ISWG-GHG 7 also discussed the next steps in assessing the possible impacts on States of the proposed combined measure. The group agreed the proposed terms of reference for assessing the possible impacts on States, paying particular attention to the needs of developing countries, in particular Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and least developed countries (LDCs).

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic and postponements of meetings during the first half otf the year, the progress on developing the short-term measures has continued, with two informal remote sessions in July and early October preceding the formal working group session. The progress follows the timeline as set out in the initial IMO GHG strategy. The strategy proposed that short-term measures should be those measures finalized and agreed by the Committee between 2018 and 2023.

In more detail:

Proposed MARPOL amendments

The proposed draft amendments would add further requirements to the energy efficiency measures in MARPOL Annex VI chapter 4. Current requirements are based on the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), for new build ships, which means they have to be built and designed to be more energy efficient than the baseline; and the mandatory Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP), for all ships. The SEEMP provides for ship operators to have in place a plan to improve energy efficiency through a variety of ship specific measures.

The draft amendments build on these measures by bringing in requirements to assess and measure the energy efficiency of all ships and set the required attainment values. The goal is to reduce the carbon intensity of international shipping, working towards the levels of ambition set out in the Initial IMO Strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships.

These are two new measures: the technical requirement to reduce carbon intensity, based on a new Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI); and the operational carbon intensity reduction requirements, based on a new operational carbon intensity indicator (CII).

The dual approach aims to address both technical (how the ship is retrofitted and equipped) and operational measures (how the ship operates).

Attained and required Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI)

The attained Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) is required to be calculated for every ship. This indicates the energy efficiency of the ship compared to a baseline.

Ships are required to meet a specific required Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI), which is based on a required reduction factor (expressed as a percentage relative to the EEDI baseline).

Annual operational carbon intensity indicator (CII) and CII rating

The proposals are for ships of 5,000 gross tonnage and above (the ships subject to the requirement for data collection system for fuel oil consumption of ships) to have determined their required annual operational carbon intensity indicator (CII). The CII determines the annual reduction factor needed to ensure continuous improvement of the ship’s operational carbon intensity within a specific rating level.

The actual annual operational CII achieved (attained annual operational CII) would be required to be documented and verified against the required annual operational CII. This would enable the operational carbon intensity rating to be determined. The rating would be given on a scale - operational carbon intensity rating A, B, C, D or E - indicating a major superior, minor superior, moderate, minor inferior, or inferior performance level. The performance level would be recorded in the ship’s Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP).

A ship rated D for three consecutive years, or E, would have to submit a corrective action plan, to show how the required index (C or above) would be achieved.

Administrations, port authorities and other stakeholders as appropriate, are encouraged to provide incentives to ships rated as A or B.


Review mechanism

The draft amendments would require the IMO to review the effectiveness of the implementation of the CII and EEXI requirements, by 1 January 2026 at the latest, and, if necessary, develop and adopt further amendments.

Next steps

The draft amendments developed by the Working Group will be forwarded to the MEPC for discussion with a view to approval. If approved, they could then be put forward for adoption at the subsequent MEPC 76 session, to be held during 2021.

The MARPOL treaty requires draft amendments to be circulated for a minimum six months before adoption, and they can enter into force after a minimum 16 months following adoption. These are amendment procedures set out in the treaty itself.

Impact assessment

The comprehensive impact assessment would be initiated after MEPC 75, following the Committee’s approval of the terms of reference for the impact assessment. The impact assessment would be based on the Procedure for assessing impacts on States of candidate measures, adopted in 2019, which says a comprehensive impact assessment should provide a detailed qualitative and/or quantitative assessment of specific negative impacts on States, and be evidence-based and should take into account, as appropriate, analysis tools and models, such as, cost-effectiveness analysis tools, e.g. maritime transport cost models, trade flows models, impact on Gross Domestic Product (GDP); updated Marginal Abatement Cost Curves (MACCs); and economic trade models, transport models and combined trade-transport models.

The final comprehensive impact assessment of the short-term combined measure would be submitted to MEPC 76. Based on this, a possible framework for reviewing impacts on States of the measure adopted, and addressing disproportionately negative impacts on States, as appropriate, would be considered.

[Chotu]

This is great! Very low aspect sail area, but I guess it needs to get under some bridges.

[Sailing Ohm]

Awesome that sailing ships are being thought about again

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Chotu

This is great! Very low aspect sail area, but I guess it needs to get under some bridges.

Hence the telescoping sails. But yes the fully telescoped sails / mast must be lower than the bridge they have to pass under. I suspect that would be designed to be less than the top of the ship's bridge and instruments. And those sail structures will need to be positioned so as to not interfere with discharge of cargo, which for a Roll On/ Roll Off car carrier is simple since they load from the sides ramps but for a container ship that will require likely more challenge.

Going to be an entirely new maritime world with the imposition of greenhouse gas emission regulations, much longer transits is really the only major means of fulfilling the reduction goal which requires greater expense for transportation, greater intransit inventory and a much larger shipping fleet.

[chrisr]

just another lot of pretty artists drawings...

wake me up when someone actually puts up the $250 mill or whatever to build it

cheers,

[Montanan]

Wallenius Marine – part of Soya Group – owns the project and contribute with design and logistical expertise. The company is based in Stockholm, Sweden, and offers ship management, ship design and newbuilding, performance management (advanced data collection and analysis) and Marine IT. Wallenius Marine was an early adopter of a zero-emissions target.

Wallenius Marine AB has come aboard the International Windship Association as a member and will be supporting the association efforts to build the wind propulsion segment further. I am looking forward to sharing further news on the development of the Oceanbird vessels as that is released.

At the moment, the ship is still in the prototyping stage, with a seven-metre tall model set to be trialled in Stockholm's harbour to gather data and optimise its performance and aerodynamics.

But the company says it could be taking orders from 2021 with the aim to deliver the first, complete vessel by the end of 2024.

[Goodall_M1]

Originally Posted by Montanan

The sails can be retracted to 195 feet in order to clear bridges or withstand rough weather."

Colregs stand on - give way regulations applying even for this behemoth of a sailing vessel underway.

I wonder where they going to display the motoring cone and what size will it be?

[MartinR]

Wallenius Marine is a sister company to Wallenius Wilhelmsen lines, which is the worlds foremost car carrier company. WW have been experimenting with reducing emissions and this is the logical next step.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Montanan

By international treaty, the fuel savings per unit of transport will be required to improve by 40% by 2030 from 2008 indexed levels and by 50% by 2050 from 2008. So yes the fuels savings will be huge.

The draft amendments will be forwarded to the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 75), to be held in remote session 16-20 November 2020. The MEPC is the decision-making body. If approved, the draft amendments could then be put forward for adoption at the subsequent MEPC 76 session, to be held during 2021.

The final comprehensive impact assessment of the short-term combined measure would be submitted to MEPC 76. Based on this, a possible framework for reviewing impacts on States of the measure adopted, and addressing disproportionately negative impacts on States, as appropriate, would be considered.

This was a very informative post, but there are a few questions. If the treaty is not signed by all countries, what will prevent shop owners from registering their vessels in countries that don't sign the treaty?

Also, it hasn't been adopted yet so the correct answer is it MAY save a lot of fuel. Additionally, we don't know that the savings will actually occur given existing technology, nor do we know if everyone will actually comply. There were a lot of words such as could, or may, etc.

It will be interesting to see what effect this has on shipping charges and consequently on product prices.

If this actually does cause a slowing of delivery times, will that just cause more freight to move to air freight?

Finally, those are bold goals and timelines, and they don't seem very realistic. Time will tell if it actually happens and if it actually makes any difference.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Goodall_M1

I wonder where they going to display the motoring cone and what size will it be?

Hopefully quite large and well forward of the front mast and positioned far up from the deck. Often it can be impossible to see a motoring day shape when one is viewing from an angle where the sails impedes viewing of the symbol, e.g. hidden behind the foresail.

And preferably a solid black cone shape not of the type of the nearly useless, collapsable netting material which are just wispy grey transparent forms, almost invisible, such as the poorly positioned "black in name only" anchor balls depicted below.

I found the regulations for shapes for USA Inland, was not able to locate the International specifications, not sure if there is a difference, reference below. A cone of .6 meters in base diameter and .6 meters in length would be tiny on a large ship. I think something of a magnitude of order larger, say 6 meters would be much more discernible.

I suspect that the sailing ship would need to reclassify its Ship Type AIS Navigational Status code signaling when it changes from sailing to motoring and back again so as to aid other ships in discerning the vessels classification of the moment. Code 36 is for Sailing Vessel. Code 70 for cargo and there be the detail type thereof, e.g., Vehicle Carrier. I don't see a list of detail types for Sailing Vessel under Code 36. Perhaps the AIS codes will need to become amended to provide for detailing of all the various types of Cargo carrying Sailing Vessels, in the future.

Will be grand to see such ships.

I have seen the rotating Magnus effect rotating sail equipped ships which aid in propulsion of ships reducing their fuel usage. A.k.a. Rotor ships, Spinning sail, Flettner rotors, originally invented by Finnish engineer Sigurd Savonius. They are simple, robust and effective but not as elegant or as powerful as the high aspect ratio sails.

All the best.

[grantmc]

Originally Posted by chrisr

just another lot of pretty artists drawings...
wake me up when someone actually puts up the $250 mill or whatever to build it
cheers,

I must confess to having felt the same reaction. Someone else commented about Wallenius (paraphrasing) having deep pockets. There have been announcements about wind powered ships being designed/developed every couple of years. The R&D is serious coin.

Here's a similar announcement by Maersk (one of the biggest container & tanker ship operators) and Norsepower announcing something similar March 2017.

Personally I'd welcome developments to augment diesel oil with wind and solar. And I would presume anyone running a shipping company would welcome a free source of energy to fuel their ships, even if just 15%. Great news for everyone.

A great deal of effort and money has already gone into R & D with the quest of reduced fuel and use of wind and/or solar. The market advantages that will be gained are enormous. And once the alternatives are commercialised those firms that can't afford conversion will be overtaken.

And for Army Dave who cynically asked:

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

This was a very informative post, but there are a few questions. If the treaty is not signed by all countries, what will prevent shop owners from registering their vessels in countries that don't sign the treaty?

Also, it hasn't been adopted yet so the correct answer is it MAY save a lot of fuel. Additionally, we don't know that the savings will actually occur given existing technology, nor do we know if everyone will actually comply. There were a lot of words such as could, or may, etc.

It will be interesting to see what effect this has on shipping charges and consequently on product prices.

If this actually does cause a slowing of delivery times, will that just cause more freight to move to air freight?

Finally, those are bold goals and timelines, and they don't seem very realistic. Time will tell if it actually happens and if it actually makes any difference.

Do you really think that the people running shipping companies aren't pondering such issues? But one thing history does make clear, when an industry gains a competitive advantage, be it new methods, ways of reducing costs or improved product quality, those firms within that industry that just keep on doing it the same disappear in to obsolescence.

At some point one of these developments will bear fruit and shipping will be changed forever. My guess is that it will be it is some sort of hybrid, given the need to maintain schedules, and also retrofit the existing fleets.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

This was a very informative post, but there are a few questions. If the treaty is not signed by all countries, what will prevent shop owners from registering their vessels in countries that don't sign the treaty?

Also, it hasn't been adopted yet so the correct answer is it MAY save a lot of fuel. Additionally, we don't know that the savings will actually occur given existing technology, nor do we know if everyone will actually comply. There were a lot of words such as could, or may, etc.

It will be interesting to see what effect this has on shipping charges and consequently on product prices.

If this actually does cause a slowing of delivery times, will that just cause more freight to move to air freight?

Finally, those are bold goals and timelines, and they don't seem very realistic. Time will tell if it actually happens and if it actually makes any difference.

The earliest the amendment to the treaty will go into effect is 2023, because it requires 6 months notice and 16 months to become effective after ratification.

As to enforcing compliance, signature countries will simply not allow ships that do not comply with MARPOL to enter their national waters and ports. Just like they presently do with all the pollution and, UNCLOS and SOLAS requirements.


MARPOL is constantly being amended. The biggest environmental change of 2020 is the requirement for use of low sulphur fuel and / or scrubbers to mitigate SO2 emissions. This change resulted in tremendous number of refittings of vessels and for a drastic change in their bunker fuel types.
As of 1 January 2020 new emission standards are enforced for fuel oil used by ships, in a regulation known as IMO 2020. The global sulphur limit (outside SECA’s) dropped from an allowed 3.5% sulphur in marine fuels to 0.5%. This will significantly improve the air quality in many populated coastal and port areas, which will prevent over 100,000 early deaths each year, and many more cases of asthma in these regions and cities. Over 170 countries have signed on to the changes, including the United States. This is expected to create massive changes for the shipping and oil industries, with major updates required to ships and the increased production of lower sulphur fuel.

The IMO has worked on ensuring consistent implementation of the 0.5% sulphur limit in its Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) and its subcommittee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR). This has led to the development on several regulatory and practical measures (FONAR’s [Fuel Oil Non-Availability Report], Carriage Ban, Ship Implementation Plan etc.) to enable any non-compliance to be detected, for example during port State controls (PSC’s)

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78, MARPOL is short for International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and 73/78 short for the years 1973 and 1978) is one of the most important international marine environmental conventions. It was developed by the International Maritime Organization with an objective to minimize pollution of the oceans and seas, including dumping, oil and air pollution.

The original MARPOL was signed on 17 February 1973, but did not come into force at the signing date. The current convention is a combination of 1973 Convention and the 1978 Protocol, which entered into force on 2 October 1983. As of January 2018, 156 states are parties to the convention, being flag states of 99.42% of the world's shipping tonnage.

All ships flagged under countries that are signatories to MARPOL are subject to its requirements, regardless of where they sail and member nations are responsible for vessels registered on their national ship registry.

In order for International Maritime Organization standards to be binding, they must first be ratified by a total number of member countries whose combined gross tonnage represents at least 50% of the world's gross tonnage, a process that can be lengthy. A system of tacit acceptance has therefore been put into place, whereby if no objections are heard from a member state after a certain period has elapsed, it is assumed they have assented to the treaty.

MARPOL is divided into Annexes according to various categories of pollutants, each of which deals with the regulation of a particular group of ship emissions.

Enforcement of MARPOL Annex VI
Concerns have also been raised whether the emission regulation in MARPOL Annex VI, such as the 0.5% global sulphur limit, can be enforced on the high seas by non-flag States, as some ships sail under a flag of convenience. It is believed that the United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS) allows port States to assert jurisdiction over such violations of emission regulation (also of future regulations of Green House Gases) when they occur on the high seas. Coastal States can assert jurisdiction over violations occurring within their waters, with certain exceptions pertaining to innocent passage and the right of transit passage. The special obligations for flag States and the broadened jurisdictions for coastal and port States, to enforce MARPOL (including Annex VI) are found within the special provisions of part XII of UNCLOS.

[RaymondR]

Once upon a time offshore drilling rigs were moved around the world by towing, now they use special ships to do so and they travel as cargo. Because jack up drilling rigs have three tall legs sticking up hundreds of feet in the air when afloat someone thought it would be a good idea to put a dirty great big sail in the front one to assist with the propulsion.

Like pretty well all these sail assist ideas it was abandoned after the first tow as impractical.