The views of the Publishers do not necessarily correspond to the views of Lambos Maritime Services Ltd. 

As fuel costs smashed through $400 a tonne again this week, much of the talk at NorShipping, unsurprisingly, was about energy efficiency, both at the ship design stage and in the course of routine operation. Of course, this is nothing new – the IMO has been working on it for some years, notably with its energy efficiency indices for new and existing ships and its Ship Energy Management Plan, drawn up under the auspices of the International Chamber of Shipping and addressing issues such as voyage planning, speed and power ratios and better ship scheduling.
    But an increasing sense of urgency is evident as it becomes very clear that the slow-rolling wheels of the IMO will have to turn a bit faster if the global shipping industry is to have a co-ordinated consensus in place and ready to present at the all-important Copenhagen meeting on climate change in December. It is becoming increasingly clear that if the IMO fails in this objective, global shipping may well find itself on the receiving end of some draconian measures proposed by people who neither understand the transport of goods by sea, nor wish to.
    Two clear initiatives were put forward by classification societies in Oslo this week. On Monday, DNV’s Deputy CEO and COO, Tor Svensen, told journalists that it is quite possible to achieve a 15% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on board today’s ships, using today’s technology, and with almost no capital expenditure. In fact, its research yielded a total GHG saving of 20% but the class society has erred on the side of caution, using an average figure of 15%. Since this could be achieved without affecting ship operators’ bottom line, Svensen insisted there was “no reason to wait”.
    In its research, DNV has identified a number of measures that contribute to these reduced emissions. Most are common sense but, for a variety of reasons, often slip through the net. Examples include careful engine tuning and monitoring; effective voyage execution, particularly in speed management; optimising vessel trim for all drafts and speeds; weather routeing, not just by container lines; monitoring and limiting hull and propeller roughness; propeller polishing, and so on. Taking more than these obvious steps, Svensen conceded, could start to cost a significant amount of money, clearly not an attractive option when the industry is trying so hard to rein in costs in today’s difficult markets.
    A couple of days later, Germanischer Lloyd (GL) announced similar findings. Executive Board Member Dr Hermann Klein said that reducing the environmental impact of shipping in order to upgrade its image as an environmentally friendly mode of transportation is one of the most important issues facing the industry. And whilst the German class society agrees that there significant savings to be had “from operational and low-level technical changes”, it believes that there are more dramatic efficiency improvements to be had from engineering optimisation.
    Such exercises could be undertaken on the components of existing ships’ hulls, such as the bulbous bow, for example. Such a bow on a container ship, for example, might have been optimised for a service speed of 25 knots but if an operator felt that 18 knots were a more realistic speed in light of shipping demand and likely future fuel costs, this bow would not be optimal. A new bulbous bow could be configured, built at a repair yard in advance of a survey docking and fitted whilst other works were carried out. GL estimates that such a move could pay back in less than six months.
    However, the class society was also keen to promote its work in new and optimised ship designs. Projecting that bunker costs could rise close to $2,000 a tonne by 2036, new ship designs today must be built with this in mind. The class society gave examples of a new dual-fuel container feeder, running on lng and heavy fuel, which could be at least 3% more efficient; an Aframax tanker with a different hull profile, raising efficiency by close to 5%; and a “baby post panamax” design, with reduced ballast spaces and a potential improvement in efficiency of up to 15%.