HPS - The illusion of fuel savings above “fuel saving” focus in combination with the MEPC 62 decision on EEDI (Energy Efficiency Design Index) and upcoming mandatory measurements

Page 1 / 10 2012-01-31

"The illusion of fuel savings - an urgent

need for improved transparency in marine

hull coatings"

Bjørn Wallentin

Global Sales Director Hull Performance Solutions

Jotun AS, Norway

"The illusion of fuel savings - an urgent need for improved transparency in marine hull coatings" Page 2 / 10

Abstract

The general market trend is that a given vessels fuel consumption will gradually increase

throughout the docking cycle – even with the best antifoulings/FRC’s in the market. Knowing

this, why do we even talk about fuel savings in the same sentences as paint products applied

to the vessels hull? The answer to the above is as simple as it is complex – “fuel savings”

sends positive buying signals while “reduced loss in performance” will easily be perceived as

negative. The above “fuel saving” focus in combination with the MEPC 62 decision on EEDI

(Energy Efficiency Design Index) and upcoming mandatory measurements of the release of

CO2 has “released a number of marketing efforts creating an “illusion of fuel savings” related

to the application of specific underwater hull coatings. Jotun has taken an active position to

refocus on true hull performance through a transparent method that allows for hull

performance assessment through onboard automatically logged data. Further, if indexes like

the EEDI are the way forward, we should aim for those that reflect true performance not

theoretically possible performance. This because the biggest potential in reducing fuel

consumption and emissions lies within the existing fleet of vessels – incentives to reduce their

carbon foot print by using higher quality antifoulings, proven by a fully transparent hull

performance monitoring method, would have immediate positive financial and environmental

effects.

Picture 1: The removal of a hull coating system by full blast (SA 2.5), courtesy Alexander Enstrøm, Jotun


The Illusion

The environment and how all our actions influence the planet we inhabit are all around us

every day. We meet it in newspapers, on television, on signboards and also from our children

as they teach us how not to waste water while brushing our teeth. We are faced with lack of

agreement/action from the UN Copenhagen summit in 2009 and Cancun in 2010 for global

environmental improvements, while individual countries and local authorities take a much

tougher approach to improve/reduce their environmental impact and “carbon footprint”. This

is the situation and we cannot as individuals avoid being influenced by this massive amount of

information and pressure. The global focus on the negative effects of increasing emission of

Green House Gases (GHG) is one of the key issues on the agenda for the marine environment

protection committee (MEPC) and other organizations within the marine industry. For the

year 2007, shipping was estimated to have emitted 3.3% of global CO2 emissions, to which

international shipping contributed 2.7%, or 870 million tonnes1. Vessel owners and operators

do take responsibility and many have clear environmental policies well communicated

throughout their organization. As a positive consequence of this focus, the whole marine

value chain has been developing solutions that aim to reduce the emissions. This covers the

whole range of products from new vessel designs and use of other types of fuels, through to

more efficient coating systems for the underwater hull. There actually seems to be an

unlimited number of fuel saving devices, that if they all worked as promised, would combined,

allow the vessels to operate with no emissions what so ever. Something must obviously be

wrong, some of these technologies cannot possibly perform as promised – but how to select

the ones that do?

A vessels fuel consumption needed for propulsion is far from a static figure. Throughout a

docking cycle the consumption will vary from day to day depending on vessel speed, weather,

currents, fouling, fuel quality, engine etc. However, the general market trend is that a given

vessels fuel consumption will gradually increase throughout the docking cycle – even with the

best hull performance solutions in the market. This negative performance development is

strongly affected by the quality of the antifouling system selected and the extent of

mechanical damage experienced.

“Reduced fuel consumption is the key to reduced emissions. However, in our quest to

develop products, solutions and regulations to meet this requirement, the paint industry and

partly also the legislative parties, have taken several wrong turns”

Bjørn Wallentin, Jotun

Instead of developing a performance index that reflects the actual vessels performance, tools

have been developed to compare how vessels could theoretically perform with the basis in

vessel data from new build. An example of this is the Energy Efficiency Design Index2

(EEDI) developed to put focus on improving the performance of new builds. We consider this

to be a good example of a typical TIME ZERO perspective (initial/perfect condition and not

representative to actual long term “environmental” performance). Operational improvements,

were better antifoulings is one of the key factors, would offer considerable contributions to

reducing the emissions from the current fleet of merchant vessels, but this is not

reflected/covered by the implementation of the EEDI.


The marine coating industry has adapted to this TIME ZERO perspective by offering new

biocide free hull coating that are initially very smooth, thus contributing to a higher initial

vessel speed or lower use of power/fuel (vref. see below equation). However, based on analysis

of real life data we can identify an additional long term fuel penalty as a result of a more

dense slime and animal fouling on these biocide free technologies compared to the high

quality biocide containing products. Initiatives to improve the fuel/environmental

performance of the new fleet of vessels are of course very positive, but the positive effect on

the environment would be much higher if an index like the Energy Efficiency Operational

Index (EEOI) was agreed upon (see figure 1).

Figure 1: The impact on the fuel consumption/environment from EEDI vs EEOI. The larger arrow indicating the

potential environmental impact of the two initiatives.

Observing the above simplified formula for calculation of EEDI we can easily conclude that

an increase in vref will contribute to a lower, and improved, EEDI. In general the above

equation promotes a smooth hull (vref), propelled by a small engine (installed power) running

on LNG (Ccarbon). This seems however sadly, to have little relevance with regards to the vessel

performance and fuel consumption beyond the sea trials at the new-building stage. The most

efficient way to reduce the emissions is to maintain a clean and smooth hull in service

between the dockings.

SFOC: Specific fuel oil consumption Installed power: main engine [kW] CCarbon: a conversion factor between type of fuel and CO2 based on fuel carbon content Capacity: deadweight, gross tonnage, TEU etc

Vref: vessel speed (knots) at sea trial

EEDI - New Fleet

Time Zero (2012) 2020


Significant fuel savings, in the range of 5-10%, are promised by most marine paint makers,

especially in relation to their biocide free hull coatings – how is this possible? Jotun’s

conclusion is that the answer to why these 5-10% fuel savings statements are made lies within

the reference used, or lack of such. By this we would like to draw the attention to the

conditions under which most of the biocide free systems are sold and applied. Biocide free

hull paint systems are normally perceived as quite expensive and to apply these on top of an

aging primer system does not make sense with the long lifetime they are designed to last. For

that reason most, if not all, hulls/sections are fully blasted down to steel prior to the

application of the new coating system. The owner/operator will then normally select a vessel

in their fleet in the correct age range being already scheduled for such surface preparation,

regardless of paint system selected. This would normally be 10-15 years from new-build with

an underwater paint system that is quite rough from several dockings with spot blasting and

repairs. So the full blast will bring the hull condition from the worst to the very best, from

rough and possibly fouled to very smooth and clean. We know that the improvement in fuel

consumption from this surface preparation can be in the range from 25-40%, depending on the

condition prior to dry-docking. With this in mind and the fact that the above fuel saving for

the biocide free hull systems are, in many cases, guaranteed for only one (1) year after

docking, it is quite simple to understand how 5-10% fuel savings can be guaranteed. Even in

our performance analysis linked to the positive effects on fuel consumption originating from a

maintenance repair docking we see positive effects in the range of 20% improved fuel

performance.

The below figure 2 shows an example on how fuel savings often are “proven” by

measurements of fuel oil consumption in a period just before (blue markers and line) and just

after (red markers and line) a docking3. Significant savings are achieved, but at this point it is

easy to forget the fact that surface preparation by full blasting in dock has always contributed

to significant reductions in fuel oil consumption. In the below example the savings from the

surface preparation resulted in as much as a 22% fuel saving. However, the full positive effect

of the docking was also “lost” within the first 2 years in service. This can be seen in the figure

where the fuel consumption is back up to approx. 180 kg/nm in July 2010 – the same level as

just before docking summer 2008.


Figure 2: Prem Divya fuel oil consumption normalized to 14 knots (kg/nm) pre- and post-FFR application

2

Have we just created an illusion based on what we wanted the above theoretical example to

prove, or is it based on solid facts? That is one of the vital questions that the reader should ask

him or her-self.

The irony is that customers, academics and also environmental bodies are lead to believe that

the biocide free products have no negative effects on the environment. Paint makers have built

this image by statement focusing on how much CO2 could have been saved if all vessels used

their technology. Jotun is of the firm belief that many customers now realize that this is far

from founded on operational experience and that the individual vessels fuel consumption

actually has a significant larger increase with the biocide free than with most quality biocide

containing products. This increase in fuel consumption is mostly due to the light and dense

slime forming on the surface without the vessel being able to remove it during its operation.

When we observe that large container vessels are unable to benefit from today’s versions of

the biocide free technologies then it is hard to imagine what trade, speed and type of vessel

that could have fuel saving benefits.


Improved methods to analyze hull performance

There are a numerous methods available in the market for analyzing fuel performance, but

few measure and analyze hull performance. To reduce fuel consumption and subsequent

emissions, fuel performance is of course the prime focus, but the largest gain to this is

achieved by improving the hull performance. There is an average 15% fuel improvement

opportunity4 in the improvement of hull performance by better antifoulings. This potential is

available also to the existing fleet of vessels, offering the majority of the short term global

fuel/emission savings possible. However, in order to quantify and avoid more adaptive

marketing efforts, there is a need for a global standard in hull performance measurement.

Such a standard must be available to all and easily understood for the parties involved.

Such a standard should aim to be:

- 100% transparent (all data available, no hidden or secret calculations)

- must measure hull performance and not fuel performance

- must be based on automatically logged data and not a selection of "good "

data

- must measure performance between dockings without assigning the positive

effects of surface preparation to the new hull coating applied.

Fuel performance/consumption is important when fuel cost and emissions are calculated, but

not when we want to measure the effect of initiatives implemented to improve the hull

performance. In the case of hull performance we recommend that an approach based on speed

deviation or similar is used as show in figure 3 below. The key is to use the relationship

between shaft power (using rpm x torque) and another relevant, easily available parameter to

monitor ship resistance. In the below case figure 3 we have used speed through water

(Doppler log) as this parameter. The below baseline/market average is based on the analysis

of hull performance on 32 vessels with a total of 48 sailing/docking intervals.

Figure 3: Comparison of performance over 60 month sailing interval – market average vs. expected SeaQuantum

X200 performance and guaranteed SeaQuantum X200 performance


Willingness to invest in better fuel/environmental performance

"If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it" Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)

In the case of hull performance the statement of Lord Kelvin is highly relevant. The perhaps

biggest environmental contribution to reduce the GHG emissions from the merchant fleet

would be to make automatic logging of vessel data mandatory. This because it opens up for

data analysis and the consequential possibility of quantifying the isolated effects of an action

made to improve performance.

Without such data and the ability to quantify the associated savings, it is not likely that

owners/operators/charterers will make significant investments.

What is possible to achieve of emission reductions by applying better hull

coatings?

The below figure 4 shows the timeline related to reducing ships overall CO2 emissions as set

by IMO5. As stated earlier in this document there is an average 15% potential

improvement/reduction in fuel consumption/emissions by using better hull coatings. These

numbers do however, rely on full compensation of speed loss by an increase in power (if

available). In today’s market were almost all vessels at times operate in a modus of slow

steaming, the potential is less. The potential of hull coatings with a market estimate of partly

compensating, partly not compensating for the speed loss, has been estimated by Clean

Shipping Coalition (CSC)6 to be in the range of 7-10% reduction from the world shipping

fleet. In other words this could contribute to almost 50% of the 2020 IMO targets - from hull

coatings alone, which are seldom even mentioned when improvements to vessels

environmental footprint are discussed.

Figure 4: The next steps in CO2 reductions

5


Summary

An illusion of fuel savings achievable from some antifouling’s, especially the biocide free

solutions, has been created. Without the insights into how antifouling’s and biocide free

products perform it is difficult to assess what is correct or not in terms of fuel saving claims.

We have tried to cover some of the basics in this article, but the question to ask when fuel

saving promises are made would be “fuel savings compared to what?” As a supplier of

underwater hull fouling protection systems we have an obligation to offer the customers our

performance evaluation of the proposed solution(s) and offer similar advice when solutions

are suggested by our customers. The customer’s and the supplier’s expectations should be

aligned.

Another key learning point would be that when fuel savings are promised and guaranteed, the

analysis/proof should be based on operational data between the dockings and NOT including

the benefits of surface pretreatment in the docking procedures.

Further, if indexes are the way forward, we should aim for those that reflect true performance

not only theoretically possible performance. This because the biggest potential in reducing

fuel consumption and emissions lies within the existing fleet of vessels – incentives to reduce

their carbon foot print by using higher quality antifoulings, proven by a fully transparent hull

performance method, would have immediate positive financial and environmental effects.

Vessel sensor data can be used to support almost any conclusion/theory, but data availability

does offer the opportunity to analyze the effects of changes/modifications done to the

hull/coating system if the correct data is analyzed. Incentives should be made available for all

vessels to log such data.

There is clearly a need for a standard method for analyzing hull performance. Jotun has

developed a proposal for such a method, and is open for constructive feedback and questions

from all interested parties to help tuning the data collection and analysis methods. Please visit

our HPS web site to learn more about it: www.jotun.com/hps

Bjørn Wallentin

Global Sales Director, Hull Performance Solutions, Jotun Coatings

1 ICS, 2009. Shipping, World Trade and the Reduction of CO2 Emissions. International

Chamber of Shipping, London, UK.

2 IMO, 2009. Interim Guidelines on the Method of Calculation of the Energy Efficiency

Design Index for New Ships. Circular MEPC.1/Circ.681. International Maritime

Organization, London, UK


3 James J. Corbett et al, Energy and GHG Emissions Savings Analysis of Fluoropolymer Foul

Release Hull Coating, Energy and Environmental Research Associates, LLC, 17 February

2011

4 IMO, MEPC59/INF.10, Prevention of air pollution from ships, page 236

5International chamber of shipping, COP17 Durban, Shipping world trade and the reductions

in CO2 emissions

6 IMO, MEPC 63/4/8, AIR POLLUTION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY, A transparent and

reliable hull and propeller performance standard, Submitted by Clean Shipping Coalition

(CSC)

Documents

HPS - The illusion of fuel savings above “fuel saving” focus in combination with the MEPC 62 decision on EEDI (Energy Efficiency Design Index) and upcoming mandatory measurements