FEB 25

Shipping company Maersk has is making great strides towards reducing the emissions of its fleet.  Since 2007, the company has already reduced its emissions per ship by 17 percent and with a new order for 10 of the most efficient container ships to date, the company is well on its way to achieving its goal of a 25 percent reduction by 2020.

The new ship built by Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering company and called the Triple-E, emits half the carbon of the industry average for its class of container ship and 20 percent less carbon than the current title-holder, the Emma Maersk.

The ship is expected to use 35 percent less fuel than smaller ships.  The ship is larger than the Emma Maersk, but has a slower top speed to increase the fuel economy.  Other efficiency features include a waste heat recovery system that reduces fuel use and CO2 emissions by 9 percent and the ability for sulphur-scrubbers to be fitted to the ship.

The ship was also designed to be 90 percent recyclable.  A so-called "passport" outlines and locates every component used in the ship so that all of the materials can be easily reused in future vessels.

The $190 million ships will start traveling between Asia and Europe in 2013 and the contract with Daewoo allows for 20 more ships to be ordered in the future.

via BusinessGreen

Comments (9)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Nice ship
written by Thomas | Electriccar, February 25, 2011

Nice approach, especially the fact that 90 % is made of recycled products. But I´m not sure about the lower top speed to improve energy efficiency. In the transport section the slogan "Time is money" is still valid.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Well Tom
written by Andrei Ligema, February 25, 2011

As a Marine Engineer myself I can confirm that shipping operators are increasingly turning to lower running speeds. This makes sense from both a financial and environmental capacity. Running slower reduces fuel consumption (of course) dramatically reducing running costs and CO2 emissions by a vessel. However it is also true that margins are cut by longer transit times meaning the amount of cargo being carried over say a year being lowered this way.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

Read it aloud
written by Brent, February 25, 2011

I notice there are very often little grammar errors in these articles. For example, "has is making great strides." Well, you're in good company. Even AP can't seem to release an article without errors like this that never would have seen the light of day in the old days (like 5 years ago). I think reading your article aloud before posting is a great way to find these issues.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

What about wind power
written by Mike, February 26, 2011

OK, this ship uses less fuel (hence is 'greener'). Why not use the wind to provide the bulk of the power required?

A side note for the benefit of the iMe generation: once upon a time all ships were green (used wind power).

• 
• +0
• 
• 

What about total emissions reduction?
written by Grant, February 27, 2011

If I understand this correctly, Maersk is talking about a reduction in the intensity of its emissions compared to 2007 levels (specified in the Business Green article). So while they might reduce their emissions by 25% per container shipped, if their business is over 25% larger in 2020, they'll still end up with greater total emissions. Does anyone know what a reasonable growth rate might be in the shipping industry?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Reasonable growth rate
written by LenGould, February 27, 2011

I'd suggest the growth rate needs to be about negative 5% / yr, for the future of earth.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

A real cost?
written by Jay Banks, February 28, 2011

I am wondering if actually the total cost of this kind of “green” ship isn’t higher than when you built an ordinary one. To obtain recycled material is quite economically demanding so maybe the real savings can come just through operating costs.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Cost is king
written by Matt, March 01, 2011

Cost of many items in the world are hidden.
If I'm the first city on a river then based on cost I should dump raw sewage into the river and let people down stream worry about it. If they want clean water they can pay to clean it up. Otherwise drink my sh#t.

While everyone would agree that the above it not acceptable, we allow some industries to take the same position. Why is coal power so "cheap"? Because a large portion of it's costs are not included in the price paid for electric. So while a dirty fast ship may be "cheaper" for the shipper, it isn't for the world. Once we find ways to charge companies cost they are not covering, then the free market will make way to clean up real fast. I could list many pages of example, but we should take the big once first start the cost small and ramp it up. It a very short time the problem goes away.

And I know "its not far for the industrial to go first". That is just saying you plan to be dead before it becomes a real issue. The developing and 3rd world countries will jump in and follow. Or more likely lead since they have to build so much from scratch anyway.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

owner/Rosedale Great Lakes Yacht Deliveries
written by Captain James Taylor, March 03, 2011

"...especially the fact that 90 % is made of recycled products."
Oh my goodness people do need to learn to read. This vessel is designed to be made of 90% recyclable materials. Can people get that?
Further a bigger ship going slower may or may not be making more or less ton miles per hour.
Got a yacht to move on the Great Lakes?
Captain James

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment