Trans RINA, Vol 155, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan -Jun 2013
offered by EEDI, shown in Figure 1, based on IMO scenario A2, with & without proposed 4 year delay. Where considerable cost savings far outweigh the added capital of the implementation of next generation ship technologies [5].
1200 1300 1400
1100
800 900 1000
700 2013 2015 2020
Projected CO2 Projected CO2 Projected CO2
2025
Fuel Saveings: No Delay ($ Billion) Fuel Saveings: 4 Year Delay ($Billion)
Emmissions (Baseline)
Emmissions with EEDI: 4 Year Delay (2019) Emmissions with EEDI: No Delay
Figure 1: Projected CO2 emissions and cost savings through 2030 for the shipping fleet affected by EEDI regulation[5].
Thus, the EEDI appears to be a realistic and feasible solution to reducing emissions. It supports the opinion that there is an industry need for low emission and low energy technology. Ideally this technology would be simple and cost effective to implement by reducing the footprint of the vessel without a compromise to occupant user experience and well-being.
Cost to Implement ACTIVE ELEMENTS
Solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind turbine etc.
MIDDLE GROUND Services, Marketing, Metering PASSIVE Form, Fabric Environmental Benefit Figure 2: Low Carbon Design Hierarchy [6].
Brown [6] has established a low carbon design hierarchy, which suggests that Passive Design would fulfil the need to provide environmental benefits as well as a low implementation costs, as shown in Figure 2. The very
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60
2030$0
nature of passive design; moves away from fulfilling functions through electrical active forms of generating energy. Instead, it makes use of energy streams from its environment.
McCartan [7] proposed that over the next few years superyacht owners will begin to compete on the basis of their environmental footprint. Environmental sensitivity will become pivotal to the future design of superyachts. This will be
reflected in a shift from conspicuous
consumption to environmental consciousness. This green envy, will offer the most competitive of owners a new edge over their rivals, the perception of being more socially responsible.
This evolution of luxury (luxification) and its ever
changing perceptions will fulfil the yacht owners supra functional needs as well as supporting the ship yards ecological regulatory design requirements. This can be seen in the 58m Ketch Ethereal,
designed by Ron
Holland, and the subsequent emergence of numerous ecological client driven concepts from the superyacht industry.
In summary passive design fulfils three main emerging criteria which are becoming more relevant with time:
1. Reducing emissions through reducing need and demand.
2. Providing low technology solutions for high energy consuming functions on-board.
from conspicuous reducing
3. The emerging need for green yachts, indicated by shift
consumption to
environmental consciousness in owner’s behaviour. Building on the users physio- pleasure and ideo- pleasure requirements inherent in luxification [8].
The ever growing fleet of yachts on our seas and their contribution to global warming and emissions offers a unique opportunity for designers to innovative in order to minimise a vessels operational footprint. In doing so there is the potential to create a new design meaning and associated market sector in luxury vessels.
In the future owners will feel greater social and economical pressures
to incorporate ecological
technology, in light of finite energy resources and the predicted energy crisis of 2030 [9]. In doing so they will benefit from higher resale values and lower operational costs [7]. As well as a reduction in associated operational cost penalties when future implemented in the market sector.
green legislation is
2. ECOLOGICAL ACCOUNTING OF HVAC AND PASSIVE DESIGN TECHNOLOGY
EA (Ecological accounting) is the assessment of flows in relation to human and natural systems. Its intent being to account for ecological costs from resource depletion to habitat destruction, it is a prerequisite for ameliorating
C-26 ©2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Fuel Saving’s ($ Billion @ $700/ton)
Total CO2
Emissions (Million Metric Tons)
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 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98