knowledge, motivation and ideas towards Low Carbon Energy Efficient - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Seafarers’ current awareness, knowledge, motivation and ideas towards Low Carbon – Energy Efficient operations

Prof Osman Turan and Dr Charlotte Banks

• Introduction
• The questionnaire
• Target group profile
• Results & Discussion
• Future work
• Conclusions
• Acknowledgements

Contents

Introduction

Reducing fuel consumption of ships against volatile fuel prices and greenhouse gas emissions resulted from international shipping are the challenges that the industry faces today. The potential for fuel savings is possible for new builds, as well as for existing ships through increased energy efficiency measures; technical and operational respectively. KEY QUESTIONS HOW TO REDUCE THE EMISSIONS? HOW TO IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY?

• International an National pressure to reduce carbon emissions
• Amendments have been made to the MARPOL Convention, Annex

VI, Regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships, to include the EEDI and SEEMP.

• Entered into force on the 1st January 2013

Introduction

• The EEDI will affect the daily operations of seafarers in the long

term as it is expected to catalyse the development and installation of new technologies and innovations

• The SEEMP will directly impact on the daily operations of

seafarers in the short and long term as operational improvements detailed within the SEEMP are implemented

How can EEDI be reduced

EEDI = Power . SFOC . Carbon Conversion Capacity . Speed

Retrofit Technologi es

Waste Heat Recovery Propeller Boss Caps

? ? ?

New Technologi es for New Builds

LNG New Hull Designs

? ? ? ? A SOLUTION FOR ONE SHIP MAY NOT WORK FOR ANOTHER SHIP!!!!!

Introduction

TECHNOLOGIES BETTER DESIGNS ENERGY SAVING DEVICES RENEWABLE ENERGY DIFFERENT FUELS ENERGY STORAGE SHIP OPERATIONS SLOW STEAMING VOYAGE OPTIMISATION AND WEATHER ROUTING TRIMMING HULL CLEANING AND PROPELLER POLISHING MAINTENANCE

2 - 8% Fuel Consumption Retrofit Technologies

• Bulbous Bow
• Wake Equalizing Ducts
• Twisted Rudder
• Rudder Stator fins
• New Profile type Propeller
• Thruster Tunnel Closures

May not all be able to be applied in parallel (cant use twisted rudder and stator fins)

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Technical Review Vol. 41 No. 6 (Dec. 2004)

Current Options being Explored

BULBOUS BOW REPLACEMENT ( 2% SAVINGS, SPEED :FROM 24 KNOTS TO AS LOW AS 12 KNOTS)

http://www.oldsaltblog.com/2013/03/container-ship-nose-jobs-maersk-retrofits-bulbous-bows-for-slow-steaming/ http://maersklinesocial.com/nose-job/

• Bio

Fuels

Solar LNG

Different Fuel types

Fuel Cells

Liquefied Natural Gas, could potentially save 20% CO2 Not looking a feasible option as such a large surface area would be needed and a lot of maintenance Electrochemical cell that converts chemical energy from a fuel into Electric Energy

2 components: Fuel Cell Stack Fuel Cell Balance of Plant Biodiesel: vegetable oils (palm, coconut, rapeseed, soybean and tallow), Animal fats. Bioethanol: Ethanol by fermenting renewable sources of sugar or starch crops (sugar cane, sugar beet, sorghum, corn, wheat and cassava)

Current Options being Explored

• Human Factors

< 10 % Fuel Consumption Education and Training Awareness Motivation

Crew Resource Management

Skills Knowledge

Incentives – e.g. Sister ship competition

KPI Monitoring

Need to Maximize full Potential of Technologies (existing and new)

Current Options being Explored

• Seafarers need to:

– Know what to expect with up and coming regulations – Know how to achieve low carbon operations and what are the best practises – Have the skills to implement low carbon operations

 Education and Training  Needs Analysis 

The Aim

Questionnaire Aim: To investigate seafarers’ and onshore personnels current levels of awareness, knowledge and motivation towards carbon emissions in general and towards shipping carbon emissions and their reduction

• Distributed to: Shipping companies, MET institutes, Maritime collages
• 6 Parts in the questionnaire

( 4A was specifically for the bridge team, Part 4B was specifically for the engineering team)

• Question types: Multiple choice, Independent & Dependent rating (Likert scale) , linguistic
• 317 Questionnaires collected ( 16% Online, 84% Hardcopies)

Target Group

UK 22% India 20% Philippines 8% Croatia 4% Indonesia 3% Spain 3% China 2% Poland 2% Burma 2% Denmark 2% Russia 2% Romania 2% France 1% Singapore 1% Norway 1% Ukraine 1% Ireland 1% Italy 1% Latvia 1% Malaysia 1% Vietnam 1% Bulgaria 0% Faroe Islands 0% Germany 0% Greece 0% Japan 0% Sweden 0% Unanswered 17%

• Participants have

been educated and trained in a large range of countries Encompassing the global maritime community and including a range

• f educational and

cultural differences.

Figure 1: Country were participants completed their maritime education and training (N=317)

Target Group

16% 26% 17% 11% 7% 6% 6% 11% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 5 to 9 years 9 to 13 years 13 to 17 years 17 to 21 years 21 to 25 years 25 years or more % of all questionnaire participants

Figure 4: Years experience at sea (N=317)

66% 20% 26% 9% 3% 9% 13% 10% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% % of all questionnaire participants

Figure 2: Type of ships sailed on (N=317)

• 317 participants

– 35% Bridge Team – 32% Engineering Team

• 84% more than 1 years

experience at sea

• Contributed knowledge

predominantly based on tanker

• perations

Master / Captain 13% Deck Officer 22% Chief Engineer 10% Engineer 22% Cadet 6% Rating 12% Onshore Personnel 3% Student 11% Unanswered 1%

Figure 3: Role onboard (N=317)

• Need to provide seafarers

with the background knowledge and understand why changes are happening

• Awareness needs

Increasing

(only 20% are very aware)

• Knowledge is less than

awareness

(if you assume scales are comparable) (only 6% are very knowledgeable)

Questionnaire Results

General awareness and knowledge

0% 3% 20% 56% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% Unaware A little aware Fairly aware Aware Very aware % of N questionnaire participants

Figure 5: Awareness of the effects carbon emissions have on our world

0% 8% 33% 52% 6% 0% 20% 40% 60% % of N questionnaire participants

Figure 6: Knowledge of the effects carbon emissions have on our world ‘Why we are targeted because we are the easy catch ….’

• Participants with increasingly more knowledge have tried increasingly

more to make energy efficiency improvements onboard

Questionnaire Results

General knowledge benefits

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% No knowledge, Mean=4.00 (N=1) A little knowledge, Mean=2.55 (N=22) Fairly knowledgeable, Mean=3.39 (N=83) Knowledgeable, Mean=3.53 (N=141) Very knowledgeable, Mean=3.82 (N=17) % of N questionnaire participants Very much Much A little Very little Never

Figure 7: How much participants have tried knowledge to make energy efficiency improvements based on how much they know about carbon emissions and their effects

• Knowledge content in these sources are not comprehensive, technical, and/or specific

to carbon emissions, particularly to shipping

• 46%have discussed the topic with other people demonstrating this is not a topic of focus

and hence discussion

• Only 20% of the 311 participants have gained knowledge about the effects of carbon

emissions via an education or training course.

Questionnaire Results

General knowledge acquisition

65% 64% 13% 16% 53% 71% 47% 46% 20% 20% 13% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% % of all questionnaire participants

Figure 8: Methods for knowledge acquisition about carbon emissions and the affect they have on our world (N=311)

• Low response
• Repetition of a comments
• Lack of technical detail
• Many comments on management efforts
• Many comments on ‘switching off’

Questionnaire Results

Technical awareness and knowledge

‘Keep the main engine parts in tiptop condition to guarantee the performance recommended by maker.’ ‘Route and speed instructions should be given to the vessels, where the eco speed must be better defined to ensure all utilise the lowest possible steady main engine load point during a given voyage.’ ‘Good quality fuel should be used.’ ‘Reduce use of incinerator.’ ‘Good support should be provided from the company by providing vessel spare parts to maintain vessels machinery’ ‘The safest and shortest route should be selected.’ ‘By reducing unnecessary

• peration of

machinery.’

• 2% believe it is unimportant
• Less important to reduce shipping carbon

emissions than general carbon emissions

Questionnaire Results

Motivation

2% 0% 4% 29% 65% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% % of N questionnaire participants

Figure 9: Importance to reduce carbon emissions

2% 1% 4% 46% 48% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% % of N questionnaire participants

Figure 10: Importance to reduce shipping carbon emissions

1% 4% 19% 56% 21%

0% 20% 40% 60% Not possible Slightly possible Fairly possible Possible Very Possible % of N questionnaire participants

Figure 11: How possible it is to reduce shipping carbon emissions

1% 19% 21% 44% 14%

0% 20% 40% 60% Not possible Slightly possible Fairly possible Possible Very Possible % of N questionnaire participants

Figure 12: How possible it is for crew onboard to reduce shipping carbon emissions

• 11% decrease in how possible it is for crew

to help reduce shipping carbon emissions than reducing them in general

Figures 9 to 12 N= 314

Questionnaire Results

Motivation

0% 3% 24% 46% 28% 0% 20% 40% 60% Not at all A little Some More A lot more % of N questionnaire participants

Figure 13: How much more participants would like to know about how crew can reduce shipping carbon emissions (N=312)

5% 12% 32% 39% 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Never Very Little A little Much Very Much % of N questionnaire participants

Figure 14: How much participants have tried to make energy efficiency improvements (N=269) ‘Very busy on board, extremely busy. It is better to stop using your car and continue with bicycle.’ ‘Limited by operation requirements and

• resources. Lack of time and man power.’

‘This priority is not so high in my mind.’ ‘No time to think about that.’ ‘Not much mainly because I am part of the deck department, but I do my best to contribute for the carbon emission cause.’ ‘Proper knowledge, training and motivation are not there.’

• The delivery content and style of a maritime education and training

course should be correct for the specific trainee group.

• The primary objective should be to enhance existing knowledge and

skills and this should be made clear from the beginning of any course.

• In some cases fundamental background may need to be revisited

depending on the group of trainees; to ensure sufficient knowledge and understanding on which to start the development on more advanced techniques.

METHODS FOR TRAINING

3,19 3,67 4,14 4,04 3,92 3,09 Theory sessions in classroom Case studies and exercises Practical workshops Simulator training Onboard training Individual training Mean Response from N participants

Most effective More effective Moderate effective Less effective Least effective

• Large difference between the ranking of

engineering and bridge teams - yet many suggestions for improvement included improved voyage planning

• Integrated operations onboard and

between onboard and ashore need to be improved

Questionnaire Results

Integrated operations

2% 7% 30% 46% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Never Not very

• ften

Sometimes Often Very Often % of N questionnaire participants 20 40 60 80 100 Bridge Team (mean=2.99) Engineering Team (mean=3.96) Deck Team (mean=2.57) Onshore Support Team (mean=3.65) Shipping Company (Ship owner) (mean=4.35) Shipper (Charterer) (mean =3.81) Voyage Contract Department (mean=3.56) % of N questionnaire participants Most reductions More reductions Moderate reductions Less reductions Least reductions

Figure 19: Personnel with the most influence over shipping carbon emission reductions (N=250)

3 5 1 4 6 2 7

Figure 20: How often participants would request information on 'how to' reduce carbon emission from

• nshore support and follow it (N=299)

CREW FEEDBACK Improvement areas

25 50 75 100 Crew awareness and motivation (mean 3.62) Crew initiative and problem solving skills (mean 3.51) Onboard available materials and information (mean 3.61) Reliability of onboard tools (decision support, monitoring devices, ...) (mean 3.62) The Availability of New Low Carbon Technologies (mean 4.46) Onshore performance support (mean 3.94) Management decisions (ship owner, shipper, contract department, ...) (mean 4.30) Low carbon emission regulations (mean 4.01) % of N questionnaire participants Most improvement More improvement Moderate improvement Less improvement Least improvement

Questionnaire Results

Integrated operations

‘All deck officers should be at least familiar with all engines on board. Thus they can plan work and this will lead for the improvement of the environment.’ ‘Coordination between bridge and engine room.’ ‘Feedback that it actually works and makes a difference’ ‘Proactive attitudes to implement and explain the benefit for long and short term gain’

• Good teamwork and

communication onboard

• Understanding of job roles
• Feedback and performance

monitoring

• Transparent management and

policy

• Education and training needs to

be provided to seafarers and all ship personnel

‘The ships management should educate and train all ship present personnel to be efficient and be given support from owners and charterers to run the vessel smoothly and efficiently.’

• Investigate the differences

between:

– Teams onboard and ashore (bridge, engineering, etc) – Countries of learning – Experience (years at sea)

• Some groups (working for 1

company or from 1 MET institute) of

participants provided considerably more responses to the questionnaire than others

Future Work

6% 10% 23% 25% 48% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Very Small (1-3 Vessels) Small (4-10 Vessels) Medium (11- 30 Vessels) Large (31-80 Vessels) Very Large (80+ Vessels) % of all questionnaire participants

Figure 21: Size of companies that participants have worked for (N=317)

• Development of a specific, formalised Low Carbon

– Energy Efficiency Maritime Education and Training course, suitable for delivery to existing seafarers, as well as new cadets.

• Management or performance review as well as

support for the development of a Low Carbon Strategy or Policy

• Currently general carbon awareness and knowledge is gathered via sources

such as newspapers.

• 20% of participants have undergone education or training and learnt about the

effects of carbon emissions (and no course describes were specific to carbon emissions)

• Crew believe that Management has the most important role to make the things

happen.

• The correct awareness, knowledge and knowhow needs to be provided to

all seafarers to ensure that they know what the best practices are and know how implement them safely and efficienctly. This is particularly important with the introduction of the SEEMP

• Low carbon – energy efficiency maritime education and training (utilising

correct teaching methods to inspire behavioural change and motivation) needs to be provided.

• Clear communication and integrated operations should be enhanced to

achieve effective carbon reductions.

Conclusions

This study is part of the RCUK ‘Low Carbon Shipping’ Project. The authors would like to thank all participants and questionnaire distributers for their time and help. The authors would like to thank also the following individuals; Andrew Wylie, City of Glasgow Collage Professor George Gettinby, University

• f Strathclyde

Hai Peng Liu, University of Strathclyde.

Acknowledgements