Trans RINA, Vol 152, Part A4, Intl J Maritime Eng, Oct-Dec 2010
Handymax Size CO2 emissions Operation
Steel Fabrication
Ship A Ship B 95.60 3.38
Shipbuilding 0.42 Repair
0.09
Recycling 0.30 Transport of raw materials and steel Panamax Size CO2 emissions Operation
0.21 Steel Fabrication
Ship A Ship B 94.45 4.28
Shipbuilding 0.53 Repair
0.10
Recycling 0.38 Transport of raw materials and steel
0.27
It is observed that CO2 associated with ship operation has the lion’s share percentage wise but it is interesting to note the final conclusion of the paper that
the more
robust vessel will have a lower overall CO2 footprint in this cradle-to-grave analysis. This interesting and important conclusion is attributed to the cascade of effects considered in the overall production, operation and scrapping of the ships.
Although CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas and is the largest emission from a ship, quantifying the total amount of overall harmful emissions produced is the key to examining the environmental impact of a ship. The environmental impact from the ship is a combination of CO2, SOx, and NOx emissions. The capacity of NOx to contribute to the warming of the atmosphere is
for
example 310 times higher than CO2, for a 100 year time frame
according to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) [18]. Thus, the environmental impact of a ship can be normalized to CO2-equivalence index to describe its overall climate change.
contribution to global
LCA of ships could be used to assist shipbuilding companies to identify and quantify opportunities to minimize/control energy consumption and its impact to the environment and to realize cost savings by making more effective use
of available resources.
It is argued that in the total life cycle of 60 years, the CO2 emission from building and operating three ships of type A, i.e. ships built according to IACS´s new common structural rules (CRS), is higher than the CO2 emissions from two ships of type B in the same period, where ship B is
described as “a ship of The
environmental dimension in ship design should be an integral part of the holistic approach of ship design. The rational use of shipbuilding materials should not only reduce the negative environmental impacts and energy consumption but should also have positive economic gains. Furthermore the generation of ship-specific LCA software tools like for example LCA-Ship, SSD and SimaPro will assist in the incorporation of environmental impact studies in ship design such as the current one. It is necessary that the interesting conclusions in this study be further analyzed by such tools in order to be generalized.
A - 226 identical
displacement to ship A, but with a higher lightship weight
due to greater corrosion allowances
form and and
particularly so in selected areas commensurate with present industry experience in order to minimize steel renewals”.
The study calculations are made for two types of bulk carriers – Panamax ships with a displacement of 84,400 tonnes and Handymax ships with a displacement of 54,600 tonnes.
In part 5 of the study, the explanatory note No. 7 to table 1 states that: “Possible technological advances in ship engines, hull forms, or other (e.g. in the steel fabrication, shipbuilding and ship repair processes), within the above
© 2010: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
97.13 2.22 0.27 0.03 0.21 0.13
96.33 2.85 0.35 0.03 0.27 0.17
J Devanney, Centre for Tankship Excellence, USA
The authors have done us a valuable favour by reminding us that environmental concerns often lead to thinking that is short-sighted and not in the interest of robust, reliable ships. In this regard, I would very much like to hear their opinion of EEDI, and the reduction in installed power that EEDI will effectively mandate.
C Breinholt, Danish Maritime Authority, Denmark
A part of the Greek study “Life-cycle CO2 emissions of bulk carriers: a comparative study” was presented by Greece at MEPC 60 in MEPC 60/4/16 “The Energy Efficiency Design
Index (EEDI) and Life Cycle
Considerations”. My comments are confined to part 5 of the study.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74