longer trips, as batteries can’t economically carry enough power for the whole journey.”


However, he said that innovation to improve battery capacity is taking place and that increased demand for electric vehicles of all kinds will ensure that this innovation continues. “This makes the possibility of all-electric cargo vessels increasingly likely in years to come, as those technologies increase the total amount of energy that on-board batteries can carry,” he added.


Anastasia Papadopoulou, a ship finance lawyer at Keystone Law, is similarly optimistic, at least when it comes to certain types of container ship. “Electric-powered container ships could work well for shorter and more predictable routes,” she said, “for example in liner container shipping, where vessels follow a scheduled service on fixed short routes. Another feasible category would be feeder container ships operating a limited inland service and also those dedicated to trading in specific areas.”


As well as battery capacity, however, another obstacle is that the battery would need to be charged up in port.


This is not a problem for vessels that shuttle between two or three fixed points, such as the electrically powered ferry which makes regular short trips across the harbour in the Taiwanese city of Kaohsiung. However, it would be a problem for a long-haul container shipping service, which could call at a dozen ports across the world, each of which would need its own battery- charging infrastructure.


Even if all these ports did develop infrastructure of this nature, doubts remain as to whether electric bunkering could be quick and efficient enough. According to Papadopoulou: “Perhaps a more appropriate solution would be solar-powered batteries or a hybrid solution involving electric bunkering in less congested ports.”


62 | The Report • June 2018 • Issue 84


Anastasia Papadopoulou, a ship finance lawyer at Keystone Law, is similarly optimistic, at least when it comes to certain types of container ship


A spokesperson for Maersk Line concluded: “Battery-driven ocean- going container vessels are very far away; their potential commercial viability would depend on very radical improvements in energy density and price per KWh. With today’s levels, a large container vessel powered by batteries would have around 80% of its cargo capacity taken up by batteries for a voyage between Singapore and Rotterdam.”


The spokesperson added: “The technology is likely to first become viable for smaller container vessels deployed within feeder and short-sea trades, where port calls are frequent and thus allow for frequent recharging options. However, for these vessels too the technology is far from being able to compete with our current engine propulsion set-ups.”


Short term solutions


In the short and medium terms, it seems more likely that container ships will use electric power in a limited way. In May 2016 Maersk announced that it was fitting 11 of its Triple E-class container ships with General Electric’s Power Take Off/Power Take In (PTO/PTI) technology.


This consists of a shaft generator motor installed between the ship’s main engine and its propeller, which acts as either a generator or a booster to generate electricity. It harnesses the mechanical energy of the vessel’s drive shaft to convert it into electrical energy.


This excess energy is then directed to onboard systems when it is required, which reduces the need to burn fuel to power the systems.


In the short term, other carriers CM spoke to were either not ready or understandably unwilling to publicly disclose their strategies for meeting the 2020 sulphur cap.


A spokesperson for Hapag-Lloyd said that the company was working flat out to prepare for the changes and would come up with a solution soon, but that it was too early to comment in detail.


A spokesperson for the new Ocean Network Express (ONE) network responded in a similar manner: “At present, ONE’s immediate focus is on the safe launch of the company in April 2018. ONE’s latest new- builds are ‘LNG-ready’, but at this stage we are yet to make a decision on a final energy strategy in line with the 2020 IMO regulation.


This article first appeared in Container Management magazine’s January/February 2018 edition and is reprinted with their kind permission.


Web site: http://container-mag.com


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