Flies like a plane Safe as a plane with the Power of a plane TS820 Brief intro

Flies like a plane Safe as a plane
with the Power of a plane
TS820 Brief intro

Enforced Clean Fuel Regulations might increase fuel price up-to 300%?
LONDON, Oct 27 (Reuters) – The United Nations’ shipping agency set global regulations on
Thursday to limit the amount of sulfur emissions from vessels and said they would come into
force from 2020.
A session of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Marine Environment Protection
Committee in London set the new requirements, which will see sulfur emissions fall from the
current maximum of 3.5 percent of fuel content to 0.5 percent.
The move will add extra costs to the shipping industry at a time when parts of it are going
through their worst ever downturn. Analysts estimate the additional costs for the container
shipping sector alone could be $35-$40 billion.
And some also questioned whether refiners would undertake lengthy and costly investments
to produce lower sulfur fuel, and so whether there would be enough produced to meet
demand.
Environmental groups welcomed the outcome,
as well as the 2020 start date. The IMO had
considered the option of delaying introduction of
the regulations until 2025.
“This is a landmark decision and we are very
pleased that the world has bitten the bullet and
is now tackling poisonous sulphuric fuel in
2020,” said Bill Hemmings of campaigner
Transport & Environment.
“This decision reduces the contribution of
shipping to the world’s air pollution impact from
about 5 percent down to 1.5 percent and will
save millions of lives in the coming decades.”
The shipping industry is among the world’s
biggest sulfur emitters, with sulfur oxide content
in heavy fuel oil up to 3,500 times higher than
the latest European diesel standards for
vehicles.
IMO Sets Regulations to Cut Sulphur Emissions by Ships from 2020
October 27, 2016 by Reuters
About 90 percent of world trade is transported
by sea.“There will be much to do between now
and 2020 to ensure that sufficient quantities of
compliant marine fuel of the right quality will
indeed be available, and that this radical switch
over to cleaner fuels will be implemented
smoothly … without distorting shipping markets
or having negative impacts on the movement of
world trade,” said Simon Bennett, director of
policy and external relations with the
International Chamber of Shipping association,
which also welcomed what it said was the clear
decision by IMO member states on the 2020
date. Switzerland-based MSC, the world’s No.2
container line, estimated its own additional
annual fuel costs at $2.02 billion. The group
said it had invested in energy and
environmental protection in recent years.
.
Refiners will also be affected. Around 3 million
barrels per day of high-sulfur fuel oil go into
bunker fuel for ships, and most of that will be
replaced with lower-sulfur distillates.
“The big thing that is unknown is the
implementation roadmap. That will determine
how disruptive this is going to be,” said Alan
Gelder, head of refining research with energy
consultancy Wood Mackenzie.
“The refineries will need to run in a way they
have never run before.”
Refineries that do not have the ability to
convert the fuel oil into higher quality products
will struggle to remain profitable as this big
outlet for lower-quality fuel disappears.
“Refiners will not invest to de-sulphurise fuel oil
and there is not enough low-sulfur fuel oil to
meet demand from the shipping sector

Enforced Co2 Regulations 40% reduction by 2030, 50% - 70% by 2050.”
ICS Applauds 'Paris Agreement for Shipping’ (Co2 Reduction).”
Apr 13, 2018
Apr 13, 2018: ICS Applauds ‘Paris Agreement for Shipping’( Co2 Reduction).”
The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) has welcomed the high level strategy for the
further reduction of shipping’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, adopted on 13 April by
the UN International Maritime Organization (IMO).
ICS Secretary General, Peter Hinchliffe said “This is a ground breaking agreement – a
Paris Agreement for shipping – that sets a very high level of ambition for the future
reduction of CO2 emissions. We are confident this will give the shipping industry the clear
signal it needs to get on with the job of developing zero CO2 fuels, so that the entire sector
will be in a position to decarbonise completely, consistent with the 1.5 degree climate
change goal.”
He added “The agreed IMO objective of cutting the sector’s total GHG
emissions by at least 50% before 2050, as part of a continuing pathway for
further reduction, is very ambitious indeed, especially when account is taken of
current projections for trade growth as the world’s population and levels of
prosperity continue to increase.”
ICS acknowledges that some governments would have preferred to see the
adoption of even more aggressive targets, but argues that a 50% total cut by
2050 can realistically only be achieved with the development and very
widespread use of zero CO2 fuels. ICS believes that if this 50% goal is
successfully met, the wholesale switch by the industry to zero CO2 fuels should
therefore follow very swiftly afterwards.
ICS says that the efficiency goal that has been agreed by IMO Member States
for the sector as a whole – a 40% improvement by 2030, compared to 2008, and
a 50-70% improvement by 2050 – is also extremely ambitious but probably
achievable. But only if governments recognise the enormity of this challenge
and facilitate the rapid development of new technologies and fuels.
Mr Hinchliffe remarked that “The industry is very encouraged by the willingness
of governments, on all sides of the debate, to co-operate and move to a position
that demonstrates unequivocally that IMO is the only body that can meaningfully
address the CO2 emissions of international shipping.”
ICS says it hopes the IMO agreement will be sufficient to discourage those who mistakenly
advocate regional measures which, as well being very damaging to global trade, would not
be effective in helping the international shipping sector to further reduce its total CO2
emissions, which are currently about 8% lower than in 2008 despite a 30% increase in
maritime trade.
As a result of the IMO agreement, ICS now expects discussions at IMO to begin in earnest
on the development of additional CO2 reduction measures, including those to be
implemented before 2023.
ICS says that the shipping industry will continue to participate constructively in these
important discussions.

Market drivers – 25% to 50% Retrofit savings for ship owners
4
Rising fuel prices
Fuel saving bonuses from charter
Higher charter rates
34% ROCE for ship owners
Competitive advantage
Regulation
Regulation
1.2bn tonnes of CO2 annually from ships
Expected to rise by >30% to 50% by 2020
Forced emissions reduction both Clean Fuel & Co2
Global sulphur 0.5 limits, total Ocean by 2020 just ratified by law
October 26 2016
Global Co2 Reduction 40% by 2030 just ratified by law April 13
2018
PULL
FACTORS
PUSH
FACTORS
SHIP OWNER
Analysts estimate the additional costs for the container shipping sector alone could be $35-$40 billion per year
Rotors a critical must to deal with
three key areas cost effectively.”

intelligent industrial innovation? ”Burn Trees or Retrofit Reduction?
Retrofitting Existing Technologies = Fuel Burn Reduction of 25% to 50%
USING EXPENSIVE BIOFUEL AT 3 TIMES MORE Co2 THAN OIL?
CUTTING TREES IN AMAZON? = BIOFUEL & SHIPPING ”IS A NO GO.”
The Biofuel Science: More and more Co2 NOT LESS:
https://www.transportenvironment.org/what-we-do/what-science-says-0

TS820 A380 ”Flies like a plane Safe as a plane with the Power of a plane
How much power is needed to
power the Airbus A380?
power a 110,000 DWT LR2 Tanker?

Advanced Hybrid Propulsion System – TS820 Flettner Rotor
7
-  Green
-  Clean
-  Cheap
-  Safe
-  Powerful
-  TS820
>25%
fuel savings
>50%
Mitigates future
regulation impacts
Low cost

Safty & Performance = AAA supply chain with global support
Folding Flettner Rotor Wing
§  The Flettner Rotor is a large upright cylinder that rotates creating a magnus effect
when wind passes around it, creating thrust
§  THiiiNK has developed a Rotor with a special sail design flap (THiiiNKSail©)
that increases efficiency of a standard Flettner Rotor by over 50%
§  THiiiNK also has developed and patented technologies that allow the rotor to be
hydraulically folded down onto the ship allowing passage under bridges, access to
ports and ease of loading and unloading
§  THiiiNK patents protect the IP for the THiiiNKSail© and the folding mechanism
Production
8
§  The production of THiiiNK’s rotor is undertaken by a committed group of world
class industrial suppliers
§  Key strong relationships with main subcontractors have been developed and
maintained by THiiiNK’s management
§  Based on THiiiNK’s proven technology, individual parts comprising a rotor
installation have been designed for THiiiNK by these subcontractors
§  All parties have been involved in the R&D and testing processes from an early
stage involving significant supplier investments
§  Cost commitments have been verified and pre-production agreements are in place

-  Green
-  Clean
-  Cheap
-  Safe
-  Powerful
-  TS820
Cost & IRR? ”Why use 4 or 2 Rotors? ”If you can do it with 2 or 1?
9
Wing-THiiiNksail© patent
Improved Rotor performance by 50% or more
Improved upwind performance from 40° to 25°
Improved equals improved IRR
Foldable- THiiiNksail© patent
Folding the flettner rotors eases maintenance and the
number of ports and routes the vessel can maintain
Folded rotor deck clearance:
3 meters” installation of 2 rotors weighs Ca 600 ton
Advanced Hybrid Propulsion System
With flap
= increased force since
no turbulent air
Without flap
= turbulent air in rotor wake
Full De-icing TS820 Rotor system
LR2 tanker
Note: TS820 dose not use highly flammable composites, highly susceptible to failure due to Lightning strikes."

§  Folding process uses 2
hydraulic cylinders
§  Operates similar to any
normal crane – standard parts
from sub contractor catalogue
§  Cylinders are powered by the
same hydraulic PowerPack
used to drive the rotor motors
if hydraulic
Folding/lifting
mechanism
Aspects of a THiiiNKsail© rotor
Motor & PowerPack
§  The Hydraulic PowerPack is situated on the vessel’s deck and is responsible
for driving the the complete rotor system, (motor)*, flap positioning including
folding mechanism * Not if electric
§  PowerPack utilises power from a ship’s generator to pressurise hydraulic fluid
that drives the rotor system, the system can also be all electric driven
Main rotor & flap
§  The main rotor is continually spun via the electric or hydraulic motor. The
Magnus effect is created when the wind hits the rotor creating thrust driving the
vessel forward
§  The THiiiNK designed flap (THiiiNKsail©) increases the efficiency of this effect,
by dramatically increasing lift and up wind performance
Folding mechanism
§  A THiiiNK customised folding mechanism is used to allow the rotors to be lowered
onto the vessel’s deck in order to pass through bridges and access all ports
Deck reinforcement structure
§  The ship’s deck requires reinforcements to install the rotors and to cope with
the additional stress when they are driving the vessel or being lowered via the
folding mechanism
THiiiNKsail©
Flettner Rotors
PowerPack
Foldable
10
Retrofit strengthening
Hydraulic
hinge
Rotor system overview, easy to install easy to operate

Deck fitting
Rotor fold actuator
THiiiNKSAIL©
11
Folding THiiiNKsail© TS820 Flies like a plane Safe as a plane
Folding/lifting mechanism
Foldable End cap
Mast
Rotor
Foldable- THiiiNksail© patent
Folding the flettner rotors eases maintenance
number of ports and routes the vessel can maintain
Folded rotor deck clearance: 3 meters”

A380 / TS820 How much power du you need? how much will you get?
47m
47m
47m

TS820 one rotor system, servicing 4 different Tanker types.”
13
TS820 rotor system Tanker Sizes / Classification Deadweight Tonnage (DWT)
Note: presentation shows LR2 Aframax example TS820 can reach all seen
Panamax LR1 75,000
Aframax LR2 120,000
Suezmax 180,000
VLCC 320,000
TS820 one rotor system, with the unique ability to service the 4 main Tanker types.”
Panamax LR1 75,000 DWT, Aframax LR2 120,000 DWT, Suezmax 180,000 DWT, VLCC 320,000 DWT
With one standard twin rotor system installation, providing ship-owners, with a simply inter changeable fuel saving
solution, that can be moved from vessel to vessel across the owners fleet of different tanker types in a docking cycle.”

Power calculations 110.000 DWT LR2 AFRAMAX with 2 x TS820
Performance
110.000 DWT Tanker has 12,000Kw installed
2 x TS820 rotors make up-to 19,000Kw
FlettnerTHiiiNksail© rotor’s are approximately 10 times more efficient than traditional sails and
can operate in winds up to Beaufort force 10
Figures re. Thrust in equivalent propulsion power in KW for 14 knots ship speed based on
equivalent assumed propeller efficiency, based on apparent wind angles, IE wind angles
measured on board the ship performance wind 90 degrees.
Electric power consumption (2) TS820 rotor’s at 14 knots ship speed : between 800KW
to 1000 KW, consumption depends on wind speed and wind angle to course direction.
Vessel with 2 x TS820 at BF4 / Wind 90° / max thrust / 6.120 KW

Power calculations TS820 different apparent wind scenarios
Additional performance via computer routing optimization
(max value)
app. Windangle° Power 4 Bft (KW) Power 5 Bft (KW) Power 6 Bft (KW) Power 7 Bft (KW)
25 271 497 826 1268
30 473 867 1442 2214
35 710 1303 2167 3327
40 975 1789 2976 4569
45 1244 2282 3796 5829
50 1560 2862 4760 7309
60 2161 3964 6594 10125
70 2744 5034 8373 12856
80 3257 5976 9940 15262
90 3672 6736 11204 17203
100 3975 7291 12128 18622
110 4157 7625 12684 19476
120 4213 7728 12854 19737
130 4140 7595 12634 19399
140 3942 7232 12030 18471
150 3625 6649 11060 16982
160 3197 5864 9754 14977
170 2672 4901 8152 12517
180 2065 3789 6302 9677
Power: Tanker has 12,000Kw installed 2 rotors make up-to 19,000Kw

Power calculations THiiiNKSail© different apparent wind scenarios
Propeller efficiency 0.6
Equivalent power under assumed propeller efficiency
app. Windangle° Power 4 Bft (KW) Power 5 Bft (KW) Power 6 Bft (KW) Power 7 Bft (KW)
25 451 828 1377 2114
30 788 1445 2404 3691
35 1184 2171 3611 5545
40 1625 2981 4959 7615
45 2073 3804 6327 9715
50 2600 4769 7933 12181
60 3602 6607 10990 16875
70 4573 8389 13955 21427
80 5429 9959 16566 25436
90 6120 11226 18674 28672
100 6624 12152 20214 31037
110 6928 12709 21140 32459
120 7021 12880 21424 32895
130 6901 12659 21057 32331
140 6571 12054 20050 30785
150 6041 11082 18433 28304
If Thiiinksail© can not be folded: Drag coeff. for a slowly rotating (Barkley eff.) drum (appr.): 0.5
Additional equivalent propulsion power when Thiiinksai©l is not folded down (in straight headwind)
windangle True wind speed 4Bft True wind speed 5Bft True wind speed 6Bft True wind speed 7Bft True wind speed 8Bft
0° 619 884 1232 1667 2215
Power: Tanker has 12,000Kw installed 2 rotors make up-to 19,000Kw

Savings achievable for existing
shipping routs / voyage durations
- seasonal average wind direction and force
Additional savings
(up to 50% fuel savings) achievable if:
- course optimisation for winds
- longer voyage durations
Additional performance
via computer algorithm optimisation
- triangulating wind forecasts, ship destination, tides voyage length
- incremental at-sea data required for implementation
Q What happens if the wind
is not blowing the right way?
Like a sailing boat you just
Have to move the rudder?
17
The obvious Questions

Power calculations THiiiNKSail© Control and Route optimization systems!
TS820 Propulsion
Main Engine
Existing Navigation & Rotor Control system, backed by the most Comprehensive route optimization toll to date, for accurate Flettner
performance and system control in all conditions.
Important factors, the calculation of sea-margin and potential of route optimisation for a Flettner assisted system, lead to a better
understanding, how to make the most profit out of a Flettner rotor system, are included in the system.
The Control and Route optimisation systems, are backed up by one of the most sophisticated measurement systems ever installed on a
vessel.

28% to 58% savings Route optimization example 110,000 DWT Vessel

20
Approvals and safety
1 Class Approval
§  The objective of ship classification is to verify the structural strength, reliability, and integrity of essential
parts of the vessel, such as the ship’s “propulsion system” in THiiiNK’s rotor case
‒  THiiiNK has a safety factor of 2.0 vs the 1.4 required by the Lloyd’s Code for Lifting Appliances
(COLA)
§  International Class approval can be provided by 13 societies that meet the full definition of a
“Classification Society” and these form the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS)
1.  A technical review by a Classification Society of THiiiNK’s design plans and related
documents for the new vessel equipment, including checks that individual parts comply with
their Rules has been completed and approved by Lloyd’s
2.  A Classification Society surveyor will visit relevant production facilities providing key components
(including those of THiiiNK’s) to verify that they conform to the applicable Rule requirements
3.  A Classification Society surveyor attends sea trials (2-3 days) / other related trials prior to delivery in
order to verify conformance with the applicable Rule requirements
4.  In service vessel must be subject to periodical class surveys, carried out on-board to verify that the
ship continues to meet the relevant Rule requirements
Stages of Class Approval for THiiiNK:
THiiiNK have been working closely with Lloyd’s
Register (the oldest of all the 13 IACS societies)
There will be no issues getting Classification approval
from Lloyd’s on the THiiiNK rotor design to be used on
vessels
A surveyor will still be required to verify that the
installation process is undertaken according to the
Class rules
The particular installation method and design of the
deck strengthening is decided upon by the ship
owners each time
§  Babcock, appointed by the Oil Major, has conducted an independent engineering report verifying that
THiiiNK rotors could be installed and operated safely on vessels using the proposed hull strengthening
support
2
3
Insurance company approval
§  Leading shipping insurance specialist Lockton were consulted at the start of the development of THiiiNK’s
rotor and confirmed that the rotor would fall under their normal overall hull insurance that also covers
almost all other typical structures on the deck (such as a ship’s crane) – no additional premium would
therefore be incurred
Oil Major

21
10 years of full scale sea trial & explosive cargos Tanker operations
Safety at
SeaEnercon with huge in-house expertise in composites,
dose not use a composite rotor on EShip1, for the
following reasons:
A working Flettner rotor has to withstand 4 times the
number of load alternations compared to a rotor-blade.
Accidents Statistics with composite wind power plants:
2011- 2016: 140 blade failure reports, and several cases
with replacement of complete series of blades!
111 fires 2011 - 2016, clearly show, all the advantages
of composites are gone compared to steel or aluminume,
once the fire starts its unstoppable by normal means!
The only FLETTNER accident recorded in 93 years of
operation, was a composite rotor Bulker installation, the
systems was torn of the deck during a storm full Night!

22
Safety at Sea explosive cargos Tankers Composites are a “NO GO.”
Safety at
Sea
Accidents Statistics composite wind power plants:
2011- 2016: 140 blade failure reports, including 111
fires, clearly show, all composites advantages
are gone compared to steel or aluminume, once the
fire starts it’s unstoppable by normal means!
Shows, using composites are a No-Go”for SAFE
Tanker or explosive cargo operations!
ESHIP1 rotors of Steel Aluminium equal Safety at Sea!
See full accident report composite Wind-Turbines!
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/fullaccidents.pdf
WIND TURBINE ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT COMPILATION
Last updated at 30/09/2016 Compiled by CWIF
Accident type Date Site/area State/Country Turbine type Details Info source Web reference/link Alternate web reference/link
1 Fatal 30/11/1980 Choteau, near Conrad,
MT
USA 2kw Tim McCartney, fall from tower while removing small
turbine. Body found near tower.
Wind Energy -- The Breath of Life or the Kiss
of Death: Contemporary Wind Mortality
Rates, by Paul Gipe
http://www.wind-
works.org/articles/BreathLife.html
2 Fatal 30/12/1981 Boulevard, CA USA 40kw Terry Mehrkam, atop nacelle, run-away rotor, no
lanyard, fell from tower.
Rates, by Paul Gipe
http://www.wind-
3 Structural failure 1981 Denmark Denmark 250 Turbines exposed to wind speeds of 35 m/sec for
10 min resulted in 9 failures and 30% damaged
Safety of Wind Systems, M Ragheb,
3/12/2009
4 Fatal 1982 Bushland, TX USA 40kw Pat Acker, 28, rebar cage for foundation came in
contact with overhead power lines, electrocuted.
Rates, by Paul Gipe
http://www.wind-
5 Fatal 1982 Denmark 50kw Jens Erik Madsen, during servicing of controller,
electrocuted.
Rates, by Paul Gipe
http://www.wind-
6 Fatal 1983 Palm Springs, CA USA 500kw Eric Wright on experimental VAWT - tower collapsed
while he was on it.
Rates, by Paul Gipe
http://www.wind-
7 Fatal 1984 Altamont Pass, CA USA 65kw J.A. Doucette, unloading towers from a truck, towers
rolled off truck, crushing him.
Rates, by Paul Gipe
http://www.wind-
8 Fatal 1984 Palm Springs, CA USA 80kw Art Gomez, servicing Dynergy crane Wind Energy -- The Breath of Life or the Kiss
Rates, by Paul Gipe
http://www.wind-
9 Fatal 1984 Iowa USA Jacobs 10kw Ugene Stallhut, ground crew, driving tractor as tow
vehicle, tractor flipped over crushing him
Rates, by Paul Gipe
http://www.wind-
10 Fatal 1989 Palm Springs, CA USA 65kw John Donnelly, atop nacelle, servicing Nordtank nacelle,
no brake, lanyard caught on main shaft protrusion,
death attributed to "multiple amputations" as he was
dragged into the machinery.
Rates, by Paul Gipe
http://www.wind-
11 Fatal 1990 Holland 100kw Dick Hozeman, atop nacelle, entered Polenko nacelle in
storm, no brake, caught on spinning shaft.
Rates, by Paul Gipe
http://www.wind-
12 Fatal 1990 Island of Lolland Denmark 400kw Leif Thomsen, & Kaj Vadstrup, both killed servicing
rotor, no locking pin on rotor, brake released
accidentally, rotor began moving catching man basket &
knocking it to the ground, third man clung to tower until
rescued.
Rates, by Paul Gipe
http://www.wind-
13 Fatal 1991 Tehachapi, CA USA 90kw Thomas Swan, crane operator, travelling, locking pin
failed, boom swung downhill into 66 kV power line,
electructing him.
Rates, by Paul Gipe
http://www.wind-
14 Fatal 1991 Australia Farm windmill A 16 year old boy died of asphyxiation in a windmill
accident on his family's farm. Apparently he climbed the
windmill to
retrieve a broken coupling, and in doing so he was
caught by the rotating shaft, and strangled by his own
clothing. His mother found him with his arms above his
head and his clothing twisted up around his neck. His
skivvy was twisted very tightly around the windmill shaft.
His mother desperately tried to untangle him, or to lift
him, but she was unable to do so. Despite her frantic
efforts, she was aware that her son was already dead
when she found him. The 1991 date is uncertain but
hinted at by a pro-wind group.
Windmills sourced material by Farmsafe - a
compilation of material sourced from
range of websites (as identified within this
document) Farmsafe WA Alliance 31/5/04
following an enquiry concerning sending
workers out to maintain windmills.
http://www.farmsafewa.org/downloads/Wind
mills%20sourced%20material%20by%20Far
msafe.pdf
15 Fatal 1991 Australia 7m high farm windmill A farmer died after falling from a windmill while
attempting to repair its tail section. The top of the
windmill was
approximately seven metres from the ground and the tail
section of the
windmill was broken and hanging down. The fan portion
was not turning
and several blades on the fan were missing. There was
a steel ladder,
constructed on one side of the windmill, which extended
from the ground
to the platform (five metres above the ground).
Farm-Related Fatalities in Australia, 1989-
1992. Australian Centre for Agricultural
Health and Safety and Rural Industries
Research and Development Corporation.
ISBN 1 87649196 5
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/HCC/00-
70.pdf

23
Safty at sea non flammable components TS820 rotor system
A ( 1 : 100 )
B ( 1 : 100 )
C-C ( 1 : 100 ) D-D ( 1 : 50 )
INSPECTION
Bladt External D C B
Bladt Industries A/S
Nørredybet 1
DK-9220 Aalborg Øst
Tlf.+45 96353700 Fax.+45 96353710
E-mail: office@bladt.dk
Pcs Dwg./pos Material Quality Surface
Construction
Builder
Description ON
Projektion
Sign. Contr. Description
Scale
Draw. no. Rev.
Size
INDUSTRIES
A3
0
Remark - weight
Rev DateRoter Mast
THIINK Sail
Arrangement T351-34 010 (V2) 0
01.12.14 JKa
A
B
C C
D
D
9500 1600
5300
Top Drive section
Main Hinge Unit
Side Plates
2000
4270
6900
650
9200
48038
40000
9000
8400
Non flammable
alumininum alloy
steel construction

TS820 easy to install – done in normal a docking cycle – easy to operate

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Retro-Fitting Clean Tech TS820 Flettner Rotors cost per % savings IRR?
•  TS820 fuel burn reduction c.35% +
•  35% reduction in CO2 emission
•  % 10 year IRR1 ?
•  year payback (with financing)1 ?
•  NPV @ 10%1 ?
•  MAERSK $2.5 million for 3%
•  $830,000 for 1% savings
•  year payback (with financing)1 ?
•  THiiiNK $8.7 million for 35%
•  $250,000 for 1% savings

IRR & Retrofit costs: $830,000 or $250,000 per 1% savings?
•  Marsek are keen to drive up the fuel efficiency of their chartered-in fleet
•  Charter pays the fuel bill and therefore feel the benefit from the savings,
it’s natural that the charter should instigate change
•  Maersk signed agreements, late 2013, with around nine shipowners to
pay to install fuel-saving technology
•  Total of 300 vessels on charter to Maersk are being upgraded
•  Retro-fitting is the only option due to the fact that the majority of the
current fleet not designed for slow steaming and fuel efficiency
Maersk Line is to pay owners of tonnage it charters-in to install fuel-saving
technology on vessels that it operates commercially but does not own
By Craig Eason, Lloyd's List – 19 December 2013
Agreement highlights
Maersk pay for all boxships, including ones chartered in, to be
retro-fitted with fuel saving technology
Maersk have the benefits of greater fuel efficiency for the entire
fleet and improving relations with ship owners
Shipowners will be will able to secure subsequent charters more
easily and charge a high rate but will also have a loyalty to Maersk
[Maersk will continue to receive a proportion of the fuel savings of
the vessel even if it is not chartered by Maersk]
Economics
Total retro fit cost: $750m
Cost per ship: $2.5m
Savings
Fuel savings: 3%
Average fuel consumption: 70 tonnes/day
Saving: 117,600 tonnes pa
$82.5m pa
IRR 10%
Payback 6.1
NPV @10% $10.6

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
10 year IRR LR2 Aframax yearly fuel savings ($ price per ton MGO).
•  30% 32.5% 35% 37.5% 40% saving:
•  3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 tons
•  IRR: 600$Pt 29% 34% 39% 45% 50%
•  IRR: 700$Pt 39% 45% 52% 58% 65%
•  IRR: 800$Pt 50% 57% 65% 72% 79%
•  IRR: 1000$Pt 72% 81% 91% 100% 110%
•  IRR: 1200$Pt 95% 106% 117% 129% 140%
• Note: 70% of rotors financed @ blended interest rate 4%

Summary/Example: out of 220 LR2 Tankers 112 would be for free
28
Summary: Co2 reduction lifespan 20 years in megatons & savings in US$?
Summary: 220 LR2 Tankers 54.56 Megatons of Retrofit Co2 Reduction
Summary: $700 per ton fuel savings of $9.2 billion over 20 years
Summary: Ship-owner would get 112 out of the 220 LR2 Tankers for free.”

THiiiNK Hybrid Propulsion Evolution = intelligent industrial innovation
Retrofitting Existing Technologies = Fuel Burn Reduction of 25% to 50%
= Safety at Sea for Explosive Cargos & Tanker Operations = TS820 Rotor
-  Green
-  Clean
-  Cheap
-  Powerful
-  Safe
-  TS820

How it works
§  The Magnus effect is something that has been
observed in many different applications around the
world
§  It is created by a spinning object accelerating the air
passing over one side of it whilst decelerating the air
on the other side
§  Due to pressure difference this creates a thrust or
push from the slow to fast side, similar to an airplane
wing
Tennis
§  In tennis the Magnus effect is the reason behind the dip in the
ball's trajectory after being hit with “topspin”
Football
§  When a football player curves the football by applying spin, this is
the Magnus effect working
§  The force is proportional to ball area, hence why it moves much
more than a tennis ball
Rotor ship
§  A ship that uses rotorssails which are powered by an engine, first
built by German engineer Anton Flettner in early 1900s
§  Vertical cylinders using the Magnus effect create propulsion to
drive the ship
§  Back then the propulsion force generated was less than if the
motor had been connected to a regular propeller
§  See history and validation pack for further details
Flettner airplane
§  A flettner airplane or rotor airplane is an airplane that has no
wings but instead uses the Magnus effect to create lift.
§  Such airplanes were first built by Anton Flettner. Flettner airplane
should not be confused with the cyclogyro, which uses a different
aerodynamic effect, but has a similar configuration of rotors.
THiiiNK flap technology
With THiiiNK flapWithout flap
Wind Wind
Low pressure
High pressure
Increased
force
Appendix – Magnus effect

Albert Einstein and the Flettner rotor
”Even after the successful test of the
BUCKAU in 1925 Mankind was still to
Ignorant to make use of the technology”
even though it was right under his nose.”
Albert Einstein
Source: Albert Einstein paper on flettner rotor University of Jerusalem
Flettner’s rotor ship was praised by Dr. Albert
Einstein as having great practical importance”
Source The New York Times - December 30 1961
Watch it Sail in 1925: https://youtu.be/PSFeoj4gwPk
www.thiiink.com

33
PRESS
Please note: the graphics have been corrected from original article to fit the TS820 rotor described.

www.thiiink.com
DISCLAIMER
The technical data contained herein is by way of example and
should not be relied on for any specific application. THiiiNK
Holding Switzerland AG will be pleased to provide specific
technical data or specifications with respect to any customer's
particular applications. Use of the technical data or specifications
contained herein without the express written approval of THiiiNK
Holding Switzerland AG is at user's risk and THiiiNK Holding
Switzerland AG expressly disclaims responsibility for such use
and the situations that may result therefrom.
THiiiNK Holding Switzerland AG makes no warranty, express or
implied, that utilization of the technology or products disclosed
herein will not infringe any industrial or intellectual property rights
of third parties.
THiiiNK Holding Switzerland AG is constantly involved in
engineering and development. Accordingly, THiiiNK Holding
Switzerland AG reserves the right to modify, at any time, the
technology and product specifications contained herein.
All technical data, specifications and other information contained
herein is deemed to be the proprietary intellectual property of
THiiiNK Holding Switzerland AG. No reproduction, copy or use
thereof may be made without the express written consent of
THiiiNK Holding Switzerland AG.
DISCLAIMER

Flies like a plane Safe as a plane with the Power of a plane TS820 Brief intro

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Flies like a plane Safe as a plane with the Power of a plane TS820 Brief intro

Similar to Flies like a plane Safe as a plane with the Power of a plane TS820 Brief intro (20)

More from www.thiiink.com

More from www.thiiink.com (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Flies like a plane Safe as a plane with the Power of a plane TS820 Brief intro