EDITORIAL COMMENT Opportunity knocks


Designing and building tankers is not merely an exercise in economics, but a regulatory minefield that naval architects must negotiate.


industry. Newly installed secretary general Koji Sekimizu was the guest of honour at the RINA annual dinner in April, when he was introduced by RINA’s president, Peter French, as a man who did not see “problems” but rather “opportunities”. Te first “opportunity” that came Sekimizu’s


T


way following his appointment was to convene a meeting to discuss passenger ship safety. However, the meeting had to be postponed following the loss of Costa Concordia. Let’s hope that is not an opportunity missed, though it seems likely that regulators will return to this issue in time. Next opportunity was the introduction of


the IMO’s Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI). Tat debate has raged at the IMO for some years now and has resurfaced in the pages of this magazine recently. Denmark’s contribution to the discussion


was informed by the statistical evidence supplied from the Danish Technical University (DTU) (see Te Naval Architect in both the March and April issues). Tis month Michael Osborne offers the


riposte to DTU and the Danish view on EEDI. And he begins strongly with: “Te first point to make is that the EEDI was not developed as a measure of hydrodynamic efficiency, which it certainly is not.” Osborne’s point that crude is transported


largely in cargoes of around 1 million barrels or half a million barrels and that this determines the size of a tanker along with the density of crude and the size of ports that


The Naval Architect May 2012


he IMO is working hard to meet its climate change targets and to ensure that safety remains paramount in the


handle the ships are a sharp reminder that these discussions are complex and there are few easy answers. In all probability the gain through finding an efficiency will see a cost, usually in dollars. A fact


that moved Osborne to write:


“Kristensen also suggests that owners could design more efficient ships if they were to stick to sound design principles instead of being driven by economics. Tis strikes at the very heart of a naval architect’s purpose in life!” Osborne’s indignation is formed from years


of designing cost-efficient tankers for a major oil company. Designers design for owners within a framework set by the regulator. That principle still holds, but now new environmental regulations are being addded to the design recipe and these new ingredients will also bear a cost. In fact during the sixties and seventies


a number of major tanker accidents saw pollution of the seas and beaches giving rise to MARPOL regulations. Ships had to change to meet new safety regulations. Te focus on marine pollution has now


shiſted and since the 1990’s there has been a growing concern about air pollution and global warming. Shipping is not exempt from these challenges and designers must look at ways to accommodate new regulations in which ships emit fewer pollutants into the atmosphere. It is fair to say that shipping has been slow to react to the challenges of air pollution. It is only since the very early part of this century that ship designers have really started to focus on designing ships that reduce emissions into the atmosphere. But, applying the best ship


designers’ minds we can see the opportunity has been taken through a plethora of ways to cut pollution and costs. Slow steaming, Mewis Ducts, re-designed hull forms, waste heat recovery systems, scrubbers and other systems abound. New regulations offer engineers new


opportunities and designers will be challenged to put atmospheric pollution at the forefront of their designs. Tat has been achieved through the introduction by regulators of economic penalties for atmospheric pollution. Peculiarly the marine pollution debate has


returned to IMO, but this time rather than sinking tankers it is the humble propeller shaſt stern tubes bearing that is driving the debate. If the research is correct and oil equivalent to 137 Exxon Valdez disasters is spilt every year from stern tubes then this a significant opportunity that should be dealt with. Regulators at the IMO are looking at the


efficacy of sea water lubricated stern tubes as described by Craig Carter from Tordon’s Bearings (page 32). According to Carter owners cannot lose with sea water bearings because no pollution can take place; there is no need to carry lubricant and stern seals cannot be damaged. Tey are more cost effective to install and maintain. If the statistics are correct and the


technology works this would be what one former IMO official called the “low hanging fruit” in maritime pollution terms. At the IMO Sekimizu must surely see sea


water bearings as an opportunity to make a significant, early and positive change to the maritime industry. Now there’s an opportunity not to be missed. NA


7


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  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80