double speed, 1/3 fuel for same ton-hp


Published on

INV 700 Bn$ PROFIT 2000 Bn$/Yr CER 10 BnT/Yr
PP 1/3 FUEL CER 3360 T/Yr/MW
VC FUND 10 Mn$

Published in: Automotive, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

double speed, 1/3 fuel for same ton-hp

  1. 1. <ul><li>July, 2009 </li></ul>Climate Change : A Challenge for Engineers !
  2. 2. What is the greenhouse effect?
  3. 3. What is causing global warming? <ul><li>The six greenhouse gases with the highest warming potential are: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Carbon dioxide - CO 2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Methane - CH 4 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nitrous oxide - N 2 O </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hydro fluorocarbons - HFCs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Per fluorocarbons - PFCs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sulphur hexafluoride - SF 6 </li></ul></ul>Of these gases, CO 2 is by far the most abundant
  4. 4. <ul><li>The impact: </li></ul><ul><li>- Increased temperature </li></ul><ul><li>- Sea level rise due to melting of permanent ice caps and glaciers </li></ul><ul><li>More violent and frequent weather phenomena </li></ul><ul><li>⃗ CLIMATE CHANGE </li></ul>Source: IPCC FAR 2007
  5. 5. NASA 2006 Time is running out … Climate Change is already experienced worldwide
  6. 6. ANDY TRANSPORT DESIGN AUTOMOTIVE, RAIL, SHIP, FERRY, VLCC, PP FUEL SAVED 6 Bn$/Day ROYALTY 20 Bn$,10 CENTERS. CER 12 BnT/Yr…INV CAP 150 … WC 1500…WORK….3500 Bn$/Yr DOUBLE SPEED for SAME TON-HP-ENGINE by ANDY BEARING 1/3 FUEL for SAME HP Nor Asp by ANDY ROTARY ENGINE COMBINED gets 1/3 FUEL, 1/3 CO2e, 2/3 CER for SAME TON-HP ROYALTY 20 Bn$, 10 CENTERS 400 200 4 2 0.8 0.4 0.2 80kg 40kg Fuel T/hr 12Mn 6Mn 120K 60K 24,000 12000 6000 2400 1200 HP 230 180 50 40 30 24 18 14 12 Thk cm 1150 900 250 200 150 120 90 70 60 OD cm ANDY ENGINE ROTARY NO BOILER, NO TURBINE
  7. 7. CO2e OIL = 2.9 T/T ; COAL = 2.33 T/T CER = 15,048 – 5,016 = 10,032 MnT/Yr FERRY DESIGN NEW DOUBLE SPEED Fuel 4 Lit/hr/1000 CC; HP 120/ 1000 cc ; CO2e T/yr = 16.74* L/hr Fare $1/100 km ; Freight $2/100 km /T SS SAME SPEED; DS DOUBLE SPEED DL DOUBLE LOAD 1500 150 10,032 5,016 15.048 MnT 5400 15 TOTAL 300 30 1680 840 2520 COAL 1080 3 PP 700 70 4872 2436 7308 F.OIL 2520 7 SHIP 200 20 1392 696 2088 OIL 720 2 RAIL 300 30 2022 1011 3132 OIL 1080 3 Automotive WC Bn$ IN Bn$ CER MnT/Yr ANDY CO2e NOW CO2e TYPE FUEL MnT T/Day…T/Yr VEHICLE 5 82.8 2.88 86.4 13,392 800 2000,330kn,24k,200L Ferry ANDY.DL 3 82.8 2.88 86.4 13,392 800 1000,660kn,24k,200L Ferry ANDY.DS 2 41.4 1.44 43.2 6,696 400 1000,330kn,12k,100L Ferry ANDY.SS 2 34.5 8.64 43.2 40,176 2400 1000,330kn,24k,600L Ferry NORMAL 2 0.44 0.86 1.3 502 120 1000,16 kn,1200,30 L Ferry NOW Cost Mn$ Net Mn$ Fuel Mn$ FARE Mn$ Co2e T/Yr Fuel L/hr Ton, Speed HP, Vol Vessel DESIGN
  8. 8. <ul><li>* Millions are suffering from ever more </li></ul><ul><li>violent and frequent hurricanes in </li></ul><ul><li>Asia and the Americas </li></ul><ul><ul><li>millions are suffering from too much water </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>millions are suffering from too little water </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>millions are suffering from poor water </li></ul></ul>Are things getting worse already?
  9. 9. FUEL SAVED 10 MnT/Day… COST 6.48 Bn$/Day NET INCOME 15.8 Bn$ / Day TOTAL INV 150+1500= 1650 Bn$…REPAID in 100 Days CDM 10*25 = 300 ; WORK 3500; FUEL 6 Bn$/Yr NET = 300 + 3500 + 2160 = 5960 Bn$/Yr…..RoI = 361 % REPAID in 5960/360= 16.5 Bn$/Day; 1650/16.5= 100Days 6073 Mn$. 10 MnT 5.0 15 TOTAL   400. 2.0 1.0 3 200 COAL PP   2340. 4.68 2.32 7 500 F.OIL SHIP   1333. 1.33 0.66 2 1000 OIL RAIL   2000. 2.0 1.0 3 1000 OIL AUTOMOTIVE FUEL SAVED/Day Qty….. VALUE FUEL MnT/Day NOW......ANDY RATE $/T TYPE VEHICLE
  10. 10. What is the world community doing? <ul><li>First step: Adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>- Aimed at stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the climate system . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Second step: Adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Commits developed countries (Annex I Parties) to reduce their overall emissions by an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels between 2008-2012. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  11. 11. What is the world community doing? (continued) <ul><li>Third step: The Bali Conference in 2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Adopted the Bali Action Plan to meet the immediate challenges of climate change, namely; adaptation, mitigation, technology transfer and financing. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Fourth step: The Copenhagen Conference in 2009 </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>- Expected to adopt more drastic reductions effective from 2012, through a “post-Kyoto” treaty. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 12. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) <ul><ul><li># 1 ºC to 2  C increase in temperature above 1990 levels will place many unique and threatened systems, including many biodiversity hotspots, at significant risk. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li># A global mean temperature increase of more that 2  C will lead to increasing risk of species extinction and climate havoc </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li># The CO2 concentration must not exceed 450 ppm to keep the global warming within 2  C above 1990 level by 2100 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To avoid this, CO 2 emissions must peak within 10 –15 years maximum </li></ul></ul>What is the consensus view of the world’s most eminent scientists?
  13. 13. Increasing CO 2 concentration 2005 Expected in 2100 Source: IPCC FAR 2007 To put it graphically….
  14. 14. So, to what extent is shipping to blame? At present, CO 2 emissions from international shipping amount to less that 3% of the total world’s emissions from all sources. A very modest contribution, but in recent years it has been targeted by the media with the perception that, collectively, ships emit as much CO 2 as some individual industrialized countries, Often ignoring some facts …
  15. 15. e.g. that Shipping: <ul><li>Carries 90%+ of world trade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Raw materials and commodities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Finished goods </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Foodstuffs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fuel </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Underpins global economy and is essential for sustainable development </li></ul><ul><li>Is safe, secure and the most environmentally- friendly and fuel-efficient of all modes of transport </li></ul>
  16. 16. CO2 emissions by different Transport modes To illustrate this…
  17. 17. Are we merely reacting to the press? IMO’s determination to address climate change comes from a deep and genuine concern for the environment and the future of the planet As a former British Prime Minister put it, we have no right to “live at the expense of future generations” Governments, industry as a whole and each and everyone of us individually have a duty of care towards the environment So, shipping is expected to contribute, however modestly, to the wider efforts being made to arrest global warming
  18. 18. Has UNO taken any action already? IMO has been working on this issue for more than ten years 1991: Resolution A.719(17) – Recognized the need of establishing a policy on prevention of air pollution from ships 1997: MARPOL Conference: Resolution 8 – CO2 emissions from ships 2000: IMO Study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships 2003: Assembly resolution A.963(23) – IMO Policies and practices related to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships 2005: MEPC/Circ.471 – Interim Guidelines for voluntary ship CO2 Emission Indexing for use in trials 2005: MEPC 55 – Work plan to identify and develop the mechanisms needed to achieve the limitation or reduction of CO2 emissions from international shipping 2007: MEPC 56 – Timeframe and Terms of Reference for updating the 2000 IMO Study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships 2008: MEPC 57 – Fundamental principles underlying IMO policies on GHG emissions from ships 2008: June - Intersessional meeting of the Working Group on GHG emissions from ships in Oslo
  19. 19. Where are we now? <ul><li>Regulatory package for all ships nearing completion. </li></ul><ul><li>In accordance with the approved Work Plan, MEPC 58 is expected to agree to the following: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical measures : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>New Ship CO 2 Design Index </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Operational measures : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Revised CO 2 Operational Index and associated guidelines </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Guidance on best practices for the fuel-efficient operation of Ships </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>MEPC 58 to continue developing market-based measures. </li></ul>
  20. 20. In a bit more detail… <ul><li>The new ship CO 2 Design Index: </li></ul><ul><ul><li># A formula that will enable ship designers and builders to design and construct ships of the future for maximum efficiency and thus, minimum GHG emissions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li># A baseline will limit the level of emissions according to ship type, size, speed, power, design etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li># To be made mandatory, probably under MARPOL Annex VI </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. In a bit more detail… <ul><li>The CO 2 Operational Index: </li></ul><ul><ul><li># Intended to measure the operational efficiency of an existing ship </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li># It allows efficiency comparisons between similar ships on similar routes and enables the operator to introduce further efficiency measures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li># With its associated Guidelines, it is meant to be voluntary in nature </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. In a bit more detail… <ul><li>The Guidance on Best Practices: </li></ul><ul><ul><li># Will provide existing ship operators with practical advice as to the technical and operational means at their disposal to make their ships more efficient </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li># Being developed in close collaboration with the shipping industry </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li># Meant to be voluntary in nature </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li># Conceived as an efficiency management tool for ship operators </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Examples of efficiency measures: <ul><li>Technical: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved fuel consumption – Hull and engines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More efficient propellers and rudders </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shore power – “cold ironing” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wind power </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Alternative fuels </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Operational: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Energy management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vessel speed reduction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved routeing & less waiting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enhanced fleet management </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Will these reductions be enough? <ul><li>They probably would if demand for international shipping stopped growing. BUT… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>-World trade is likely to keep increasing, even during a global economic crisis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-Emerging economies, such as China, India, Brazil and others generate a growing need for shipping </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-Many developing countries depend on sea transport for food and basic commodities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>So, the reductions achieved by applying technical and operational measures may be offset by an increase in shipping activity over time. </li></ul><ul><li>That’s why we may need market-based measures </li></ul>
  25. 25. Market-based measures? <ul><li>Basically, these are economic mechanisms that enable those who emit more CO 2 than an established limit or “cap” to buy “credits” earned by those who emit less than the limit. There are two main modalities being considered for shipping: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>-Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-Fuel Levy </li></ul></ul><ul><li>This subject is very complex and merits a dedicated presentation. Perhaps next year. </li></ul><ul><li>The introduction of these measures may necessitate a self-standing treaty instrument, along the lines of the IOPC Fund Convention </li></ul>
  26. 26. Are there any serious obstacles? We hope there will not be major problems in regulating the technical or operational measures. However, a number of countries continue invoking the UNFCCC’s principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” They argue that industrialized countries (Annex I Parties) should be the ones to take action in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from any source This principle is applied to shipping under article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol, which states that “The Parties included in Annex I shall pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol from aviation and marine bunker fuels, working trough ICAO and IMO, respectively.”
  27. 27. This seems fair; what is the problem? The principle is fair if applied to land-based industries subject to national controls, such as power generation, cement production or land transport. However, if applied to shipping, the effect would be that ships flagged in Annex I (industrialized) countries (25% of the world fleet) would be obliged to reduce their emissions, whereas ships flagged in non-industrialized countries (the vast majority of the world fleet) would not. This is contrary to the spirit of all IMO Conventions, which apply equally to all ships, regardless of flag. Any such regime would eliminate the “level playing field” principle and would introduce unfair competition and flag hopping.
  28. 28. Is there a solution in sight? <ul><li>The Secretary-General, while emphasizing the need to keep IMO Membership united, is spearheading a high-level campaign, advocating the following two principles: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Any IMO regulatory regime should be applicable to all ships engaged in international trade, regardless of flag </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The development and enactment of such a regulatory regime should be the responsibility of IMO, not the UNFCCC </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Administrations are being provided with sound arguments, both procedural and legal. </li></ul>
  29. 29. How can this work in practice? <ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. by separating the technical/operational measures from the market-based measures, such that: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Technical / Operational measures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>-Mandatory provisions (CO 2 Design Index) may be adopted under MARPOL Annex VI at MEPC 59 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-Non-mandatory provisions (CO 2 Operational Index and Best Practices) may be adopted by MEPC resolution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-Both of these would apply to all ships. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Market-based measures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>-Continue developing an acceptable global mechanism (Emission Trading Scheme/Fuel Levy/Hybrid) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-Applicable to all ships but revenues to be used with common but differentiated responsibilities in mind. </li></ul></ul>
  30. 30. Finally, will UNFCCC accept the plan? Hopefully…But it has to be adopted by IMO Members first! The Secretary-General intends to present a position paper to the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 15) to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009 In the post-Kyoto instrument to be adopted by COP 15, ideally, there should be an article merely stating that: “ The Parties shall pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol from marine bunker fuels, working through IMO.” With no IMO regime in place, regional and unilateral action may proliferate (EU; USA; Japan; Australia)
  31. 31. Summing up <ul><li>If shipping is to have a positive impact on climate change, it needs a global regime developed and enacted by IMO and applied to all ships engaged in international trade, giving due consideration to the needs of developing countries </li></ul><ul><li>IMO will continue to work hard, in co-operation with the industry, the UNFCCC Secretariat and other relevant UN organizations, to achieve that noble objective </li></ul>
  32. 32. Thank you for your attention! Venture Cap Fund us $ M A APPAN M E, Mb 9109840463337 5 Mn 2 Mn 3 Mn Ferry 500 T, 660 kn 35.4 Mn 10.2 Mn 25.2 Mn Total 20 Mn 4 Mn 16 Mn VLCC 10kT, 330 kn 5 Mn 2 Mn 3 Mn Ship 1000 T, 330 kn 5 Mn 2 Mn 3 Mn Rail 1000T 600 kph 400,000 200,000 200,000 Automotive RD,FD Both Engine Bearing Vehicle