ShipCrunch

Can you pay your way out of ignorance?

A new guide to marine efficiency technologies is out. It's called "The Guide". Is it "The Answer"?

By Ryan Skinner (email)

Most publishers give reviewers a free copy of the book. A few days ago a PR rep from Blue Communications sent me a press release (here it is: Download Fathom 'The Guide' Press Release Jan (1)) about a new book. Yes, a press release about a book. Presumably, I would have to buy it (at around $400), if I want to review it. It's OK. I don't.

But I'll help them spread the word about it. We know full well that shipping companies are writhing and contorting themselves to figure out how best to figure out the efficiency beast. A publisher called Fathom (get it?) has now created a guide to shipping efficiency technologies, snappily called The Guide. They give a review of 60+ technologies that improve efficiency, and add information about the companies that offer them.

Thus, my question: Can you pay your way out of ignorance? God, I hope so. Or I hope people can at least read their way out of ignorance. We've seen a passel of indices related to efficiency, we'll see more and more books like this, there are conferences and seminars and who knows what else. If you can't pay your way out of ignorance, these people's business models are in trouble.

Questions for The Guide: Does your reference book tell a shipping company about the thorny process of grafting a new efficiency technology on an existing structure? Does it describe how this efficiency technology will meet regulations that haven't even been written yet? What were the sources of your information about technologies - the suppliers themselves, Lloyd's Register, or impartial users?

What The Guide doesn't purport to offer (sadly) is a community around the content, to provide a mechanism for vetting and renewing the statements, and to build a path for future development of these technologies. Geomares Publishing at least tried to do as much with its book, The Electronic Chart. They seemed to fail, but at least they had their head on straight.

Does shipping have an efficiency dilemma?

Does more efficient shipping equal more ships and more pollution and emissions? The Jevons Paradox.

By Ryan Skinner (email)

I've had an operation in the new year, and thus more time to read some meaty stuff. I stumbled over a particularly compelling little article in the New Yorker that argued persuasively against the dangers of energy efficiency.

"Em, what?" you may ask. How is energy efficiency dangerous? I'd encourage anyone to consult the full article (a great read) by David Owen directly here. [Sorry, subscription required for full text].

For everyone else, here's the gist. A 19th Century economist named William Stanley Jevons noted that his contemporaries were confusing economic use of fuel (efficiency) with reduced consumption. In fact, the opposite often takes place: Greater efficiency spurs renewed investment and results in even greater consumption. It's become known as the Jevons paradox.

The logic holds. It's similar to an argument I heard about car safety. With all the safe accoutrements that have been added to modern cars, why is traffic mortality still so high? Because people drive faster. If you want real traffic safety, replace the airbag in the steering wheel with a spring-loaded knife. That'll slow people down.

This paradox can be easily seen in shipping. How many times have we heard shipping's wafer-thin champions describe how the per-unit efficiency and cleanliness of ships have radically improved? Of course, any idiot can see that shipping's overall environmental footprint has grown and grown. Cleaner ships begat more ships begat more pollution.

Some would argue that the connection between efficient ships and pollution has become "decoupled". That is, more efficient ships would not trigger increased investment. When energy becomes only a marginal proportion of costs, this happens. So tell me, is energy a marginal proportion of shipping's costs? Will it be any time soon?

A valuable thought experiment in this context might be to consider how great the volume of transport could be given zero costs. That is, if anything could be transported (say, teleported) anywhere, instantly, at zero cost, how much more would be transported than today?

The ultimate irony of some of Jevons' champions is their argument that the best way to cut greenhouse gas emissions would be to mandate unefficient ships. It's counterintuitive, but it at least moves the focus from a slightly misleading metric - efficiency - to the most painful one - cost.

What do you think? Is the game of chasing efficiency counterproductive?

Clean Shipping Index Death Match: Richard Branson vs. Sweden

The guy who's made space tourism a reality is pit against the homeland of IKEA over....an index.

By Ryan Skinner (email)

So, despite coverage from a handful of major news organizations, Richard Branson's own clean shipping index seemed to kind of tank. The industry itself seems to think it, well, sucks.

Into the breach comes....Sweden! A couple of scientists from Sweden have apparently constructed their own comparative green shipping index. And, unlike the usually ever-so-media-savvy Branson, they made a little video about it. My response on seeing it: Neat-o!

ShippingEfficiency.org: Slam dunk for the industry, or toaster stunt?

Is the Richard Branson-magic the stuff of industrial progress, or the stuff of smoke and mirrors?

By Ryan Skinner (email)

Carbon War Room's Peter Browning dropped me, ever so casually, a press release from Cancun last night, informing me of the world's first carbon emissions data hub for shipping. Their press release is here: Download Carbon War Room unveils world’s first carbon emissions data hub for shipping . Washington Post, The Guardian and Sky News have already carried the news.

Basically, we're talking about a web-site, with a back-end that claims to provide ship charterers and supply chain pro's with vessel efficiency information. It's built on the IMO's EEDI and the CCWG's CO2 index.

I'm not going to dive into the merits of EEDI and the CCWG methodology. Leave it that they have some soundness. @freightinvestor responded to my tweet arguing that shippingefficiency.org was a slam dunk for the industry thus:

Now, I've had my issues with Carbon War Room in the past. And, again, I would argue they're making the same mistake. Once again, they ask for widespread participation, while they only follow up with the few who serve their interests.

But, alas, you can't get upset when the big kids won't let you play in their sandbox, if they manage to build a great sand castle. Many in the industry have argued that a widely inclusive and democratic process on big, industrial questions is impossible. Better to work with a coalition of the willing. Perhaps that's the rhyme and rhythm of this kind of progress.

The question remains: Is what they've constructed merely a pretty sand castle, or is it something better and sturdier?

As PR stunts go, slapping a metaphorical energy efficiency tag, like those we see on dishwashers and toasters, on to the side of a post-Panamax container ship has some merit. It's cute, straightforward and easily comparable. It just might fix an industry problem, allowing buyers of shipping services to select based on a vetted standard for environmental performance.

If there are any problems related to the public value of shippingefficiency.org, it's these:

1. It could kill moonshots. That is, when you create a nice and easy stepwise way to enable lowered emissions (if small), then you sap the energy from bolder efforts to gun straight for zero emissions.
2. It doesn't really do anything about overall shipping-related emissions. Coal-powered production of goods in one country will not suffer, compared to cleaner-powered production in another country. That is, we're only looking at the relative efficiency of moving things, not producing them. Arguably, shipping could say that production isn't it's problem. From a PR perspective, though, it is.

Shipping web-sites that aim to bite off as much as shippingefficiency.org has, and chew it, are few and far between. Shippingefficiency.org doesn't solve shipping's emissions problems, but it puts a decent face on the effort, if only for the industry itself.

Got opinions? Anyone leaving a comment here, sharing their opinion of shippingefficiency.org, I promise to forward to Carbon War Room's Peter Boyd directly. Let's put some opinions on this.

Collision over port-area pollution, e-Navigation and shipping secrecy?

An irresistible force hits an immovable object in the immediate vicinity of voters. Ouch.

By Ryan Skinner (email)

Shipping's long pleaded its innocence in environmental terms. It argued for efficiency in supply chains, even as smoke stacks belched SO_X and NO_X into port-side populations' lungs.

Suddenly, shipping's going to get the terrible opportunity to put some figures behind its words. That is, ships' operators are going to be asked (at the sharp end of a law) to reveal their emissions figures to port authorities.

Why? Because they have these figures, because port authorities know they have them and because new technologies for port traffic make them important. What's going on here is the collision of emissions monitoring, greater attention to emissions in port areas and e-Navigation.

e-Naviwhat, you say? Many imagine e-Navigation as just an extension of ECDIS, whereby you'll get your charts on a screen, along with weather information, tides, blackjack, sports scores and your horoscope, or something along those lines.

But e-Navigation is more than that. It's about tying ships much closer to shore authorities. We're talking about setting up a big, fat data and communications pipe between ships coming to ports and shoreside authorities.

One of the often-stated goals of e-Navigation would be a rationalization of port traffic, so that ships would not steam hellbent-for-leather to a port, then idle just outside the port waiting for a slot. It would be folly to believe that shoreside authorities aren't going to demand a feed of emissions data from each ship coming to land from, say, 100 kilometers away.

Will shipowners and operators freak out to hear they're going to have to give all and sundry full access to their pollution vital signs? To their schedules? And to their operating profile? I imagine so. After all, Maersk recently announced that they would give shippers with full, certified emissions data related to their shipments. They never said they would publish the same on a Times Square billboard.

Particularly for port areas, greater transparency and novel technology are set to slam into the interests of secrecy. What's your take?

I'll show you mine, if you show me yours (#measurement)

Has shipping finally gotten a decent yardstick to beat itself (senseless) with? It might.

By Ryan Skinner (email)

This week Maersk announced that it had obtained Lloyd's Register certification for a scheme to measure carbon emissions from its ships. From now on, it would:

Add the carbon dioxide (CO2) data - verified by Lloyd’s Register - as one of eight performance measures in score cards that are presented to customers.

That is, the data will be certified, not just a figure jerry-rigged by a hyperactive business development manager. In the article in Bunkerworld, a representative from Starbucks got all frothy about the ability to put together complete supply chain emissions records. It's something I understand the rest of the supply chain has been waiting for: accurate emissions figures for the sea link.

Europe's maritime R&D priorities: 7th Framework programme 2011

Propping up both the environment and ailing European shipyards is at the heart of Europe's maritime R&D strategy

By Ryan Skinner (email)

If sulphur emission control areas and port-area air quality guidelines are the stick of European environmental regulation, the EU's R&D machinery must be the carrot. On Tuesday, the EU issued its latest calls for proposals for R&D funding, as part of its seventh framework programme.

A close reading of the guidance document outlining the EU's maritime R&D strategy objectives proves enlightening. First, the strategic priorities that surprise no one:

• Major reduction in CO₂ emissions, with the emphasis on step-change research in all surface transport modes
• Strengthening European competitiveness in all surface transport modes, through exploitation of the potential of eco-innovation...

Note particularly the emphasis on a step-change. Presumably step-change means wind, nuclear or fuel cell power, when applied to shipping. Ironically, real step-changes will probably stem from the kinds of R&D that have nothing inherently to do with shipping: battery technology, fuel chemistry, etc.

For all the high-mindedness, the funding priorities very quickly get down to hairy particularities.

SST.2011.1.1-1 Green retrofitting through optimization of hull-propulsion interaction

This is the easy win. Naval architects have for over a year been promising over 10% improvements in ship efficiency from better hull-propellor interactions. And, as this throws a big bone at underemployed European shipyards, politicians like it. In fact, it's so straightforward one wonder why it's necessary as part of strategic R&D investment.

SST.2011.1.1-2 Retrofitting of existing ships with green technologies

Extremely open-ended, isn't it? I mean, what supplier doesn't claim that their product is a green technology in one way or other? Thus the EU specifies: "Development of accurate assessment methods for determination of the environmental and operational benefits of these technologies." There's the rub, and this won't be a question answered in the maritime realm but rather at a pan-industrial level.

Interestingly, the same objective highlights "development of decision support systems for emission controls and energy optimization in the operation of ships...as well as constraints from e.g. slot times in harbors." Here we're looking at integrated ship performance monitoring. Slot times would probably be a reference to e-Navigation and vessel traffic services.

SST.2001.1.1-3 Towards zero emission marine engines

One director of a major marine engine manufacturer scoffed at the mere idea of zero emission engines. Alas, not the EU. Along with sops to R&D in cool combustion, new kinds of fuel injection, turbocharging and biofuel consumption, the programme prioritizes, as above, optimization and system integration. Yes, those ships that the class societies have wired up to the gills are the target here.

SST.2011.5.2-4. Exploring and fostering international collaboration in the waterborne transport sector

Maritime EU throws its weight behind co-operation with Brazil and Russia. This is undoubtedly part of a grander European scheme to secure a tight relationship with important new energy markets. It's strange to see that no Asian countries (China? India?) are mentioned.

OCEAN.2011-1. Multi-use offshore platforms

To the tune of EUR 14 million, the EU is keen to back more wind energy and aquaculture far from where people can see it. Part of the scope: "Development of transport solutions for optimized installation, maintenance, operation and services to shipping (breakwater, terminals, etc.)." All in all, this beast of an idea works better on paper than it does in practice. 

Offshore drillers, your underpants are showing

All the technological sophistication in the world is starting to look a lot like Mousetrap.

By Ryan Skinner (email)

Maybe you wondered once how oil companies get to the oil and gas under the ocean. You asked someone who worked in the business and you got "the explanation".

"The Explanation" begins in soft tones. Thousands of feet of water depth are mentioned. Then the story goes far down into the ocean floor. There are pipes within pipes within pipes, diamond-encrusted drill-bits, special fluids, lateral drilling, 4D ocean floor mapping, seismic studies, reservoir management, the works.

Generally, the person giving "the explanation" implicitly takes credit for all or it, as if he or she had personally invented the Internet, Velcro, post-it notes and everything in between. You are expected to gape in awe.

Then, things go lop-sided, as with Deepwater Horizon. Instead of shattering the mystique around deep-ocean drilling, an accident reinforces it. Now you can appreciate the tremendous forces that are at play. Now all the fancy technology makes sense.

But wait a minute. Something doesn`t fit. As the drillers struggle to redress the gushing problem they`ve created 10,000 leagues under the sea, you become aware of something new, their general cluelessness.

One minute they`re trying to pour cement into a geyser. The next they`re playing with mousetrap-like contraptions. The last attempt failed because "a wire saw being used to slice through the riser pipe got stuck." Got stuck? What happened to diamond drill-bits?

How does so smart get so dumb so quickly?

The image of the rocket scientists has been replaced by that of your cousin Verne from Little Rock. The next time we hear from the accident site they will be twisting together a thousand wire coat-hangers so they can try to jimmy the wellhead. Or maybe someone`s cousin`s sister from outside Nashville will pop over to Rock City and throw a coin into the waterfall.

This has all happened before, of course. I was recently at the Norwegian museum for oil exploration in Stavanger, which celebrates all the roughnecking around the North Sea. There I learned of the precedent to Deepwater Horizon - the Bravo blowout of 1977.

It was the famous Texas oilman Red Adair and his team that managed to stop that subsea gusher. According to legend, he simply squinted at the well, touched his belt-buckle and the oil stopped flowing of its own accord. His pure texiness stopped up the well.

Sadly, Red died in 2004. Perhaps the people who failed with a wire saw should shelve their thoughts of the nuke and consider getting a medium to summon Red`s spirit.

In any event, the mystique that turns a roughneck or toolpusher into a reservoir analyst or ROV operator somewhere between the rig's deck and the ocean floor is forever blown away.

Shippers will get all the data on carriers. Then what?

Soon ships' emissions data will be open to everybody. What will they, what can they do with it?

By Ryan Skinner (email)

OOCL is the latest in a string of big container lines to offer a carbon calculator, which is meant to give customers a means of calculating a shipment's emissions and comparing them with other transport options and providers. It's the latest result of two colliding trends: Increased harvesting and manipulation of data, and increased end-user interest in bottom-line environmental impact.

Like many, I'm a bit jaundiced regarding environmental claims, so I followed the strings of OOCL's press release back to those behind the carbon calculator. I wanted to know what this calculator could do, what it couldn't, how OOCL would use it, how shippers would use it and what it all meant?

The carbon calculator is the product of the Clean Cargo Working Group (CCWG), which was set up by an outfit called BSR seven or eight years ago. CCWG was set up to give shippers and carriers a place where shippers could drive improvements collectively and carriers could build common standards. I talked to Raj Supra and Marshall Chase who work on the CCWG for BSR.

Supra confirmed that CCWG surveys its members (which include over 60% of the global market for container carriers) for a quantitative set of metrics, including carbon-dioxide and sulphur- and nitrogen-oxides. Specific emission factors per ship per voyage are built based on formulas that stem from the IMO, but include a mish-mash of specifics updated as IT capabilities increase.

The idea of businesses driving other businesses to improve based on quantitative performance is comforting. But why should we trust industry to police itself? There's a Switzerland-sized oil slick in the Gulf arguing against industry's self-regulation.

The CCWG is on this issue in three ways: 1) This May, the group resolved to make its emission factors public (and the formulas that create them). 2) They are piloting a verification system that provides some layer of auditing of the figures. 3) Work has begun aligning their work with work in the US EPA and the World Economic Forum's logistics group.

Is the data having any effect, I asked? Are people choosing away suppliers for filling the troposphere with carbon-dioxide? Only anecdotally. "Some shippers are plugging the data in supply chain scorecards, rating and ranking suppliers. If it's not already grounds for choosing suppliers, it will be soon."

Basically, BSR and CCWG are trying to help shippers and carriers find their way through the data maze; in this instance, the lofty goal is emissions. The challenge is on industry to use the data wisely, and drive improvement so quickly that regulators don't force the issue. Will they succeed? The jury's still out.

MEPC 60: Not enough ado about something

This week's MEPC 60 meeting preceded by leaders' tremendous exertion not to have a strong opinion 

By Ryan Skinner (email)

After COP15 crumbled, it seems as if responsibility for managing shipping's carbon emissions has fallen by default in the lap of the IMO. This week, MEPC 60 in London will demonstrate what the IMO is capable of.

Justin Stares' article in Lloyd's List on 10 March relating the EU's decision to let the IMO deal with the carbon mess ended pithily: "Given internal divisions and the magnitude of the task, there is little optimism in the EU capital that he IMO process will prove capable of laying the groundwork for market-based measures."