WP 6: New s cales and ices · economically feasible. It seems that vessels that fall within the...

WWP 6:

D6

C R Pr W R

New s

.4: Synt

reation Daevision Daroject:

WP: esponsible

0/57

scales

thesis an

ate: 2013–1ate: 2014-0

MoveIT6

e: Ecorys

W

s and

nd impa

12-20 04-14 T! -

s - Johan G

WP 6: New

serv

act asses

Gille, Linett

w scales an

ices

ssment

te de Swar

nd services

rt

s

WP 6: New scales and services

1/57

ABSTRACT Inland waterway vessels are considered the cleanest land based transport mode in terms of its CO2 emissions on a per ton-km basis. However other modes are quickly catching up and speeding up is needed to maintain the IWT green character. For some emission categories (NOx, PM), road transport is already outperforming IWT. One reason for IWT to lag behind other modes is the long technical and economic lifetime of ships, which can easily extend 50 years. The replacement rate of the fleet is therefore rather low. This means, by modernising just through replacing older vessels by newer ones, the sector may become bypassed by other transport sectors soon. Therefore, action is needed targeting the existing IW fleet. To improve the performance of the inland waterway sector especially the existing fleet should be modernized. Currently there is insufficient knowledge about how to modernize the inland waterway fleet efficiently. The MoVe IT! project aims to develop concrete applications that can be installed on existing ships. WP 6 focuses on the most common old vessels in the fleet. WP6 can be split in two clusters. The first cluster analyses the options to improve the competitive position of relatively small vessels in the fleet (CEMT II and III) by lengthening them (with a goal to reach CEMT IV). The second cluster assesses new market opportunities for single hull tankers. This report is the last step of the first cluster where the economic and environmental feasibility of the lengthening steps are assessed. Lengthening of small inland vessels (by contemporary standards) is found to be economically feasible. It seems that vessels that fall within the CEMT II and III class can benefit of this retrofit option, as is shown from the business cases for the MV Hendrik and the MV Rheinland conducted in this task. Based on the analysis done and also in line with the results of the lengthening done in WP 7.2, inland vessels already need to have a critical mass to ensure that the lengthening will be economically feasible. If a vessel is too small, as is the case for e.g. the MV Rheinland, lengthening will be less feasible, especially when the vessel is only lengthened with 6 metres. To make lengthening a feasible option the benefits need to outweigh the investment costs. From an economic and environmental perspective it seems feasible to install a propeller in nozzle instead of a naked propeller. The propeller in nozzle is able to reduce the fuel consumption and therefore the impact of CO2 emissions. To have full economical and environmental effects, the speed should be reduced, but speed reduction has a cost too and is not as easy as it sounds.


2/57

Document Properties Document Name: WP 6: New scales and services Document Author(s) Johan Gille, Linette de Swart. Document Editor(s) Date of delivery 2014 04-14 Nature of Deliverable Report Prototype Demonstrator Other Circulation Security Status Document Status Draft

X Final Approved by SG Steering (or SP meeting type-D) Approved by reviewer Acknowledged by MOVEIT! Steering Issued to EC

Keywords economic feasibility, environmental assessment, IWT, synthesis Related MoVeIT! Reports D6.1, D6.2 and D6.3.

Partners involved No. Organisation Name Name Email 12 UNIVERSITATEA DUNAREA DE

JOS DIN GALATI Ionel Chirica

14 University of Belgrade Dejan Radojcic

Document history Version Date of delivery Changes Author(s)

Editor(s) Reviewed by

0.1 2013 – 12 - 20 First draft Johan Gille Linette de Swart

Dejan Radojcic

0.2 2014 – 04 - 17 Second draft Johan Gille Linette de Swart

Robert Hekkenberg

0.3 2014 – 04 - 24 Final report Johan Gille Linette de Swart

Table

ABSTR

1 EX

1.1

1.2

1.3

2 INT

2.1

2.2

2.3

3 ME

3.1 3.1

3.2

PART A

4 DE

4.1

5 CO

5.1

5.2

5.3

6 EC

6.1

6.2 6.2

6.3

6.4

e of Con

ACT ...........

XECUTIVE S

PROBLEM

TECHNIC

RESULTS

TRODUCT

BACKGR

AIM OF T

STRUCT

ETHODOL

METHOD1.1 Asse

METHOD

A: HENDRI

ESCRIPTIO

OPERAT

ONSIDERED

SHIP STR

MANOEU

POWERIN

CONOMIC

COMMER

INPUT D2.1 Spec

RESULTS

SENSITIV

ntents

.....................

SUMMARY

M DEFINITI

CAL APPRO

S AND ACH

TION ............

ROUND .....

TASK 6.4 .

URE OF TH

OGY ...........

DOLOGY Oessing diffe

DOLOGY FO

IK .................

ON OF THE

IONAL PRO

D SHIP MO

RUCTURE ..

UVRABILITY

NG ...........

FEASIBILIT

RCIAL / EC

DATA AND cific assum

S OF ECON

VITY ANAL

.....................

Y ...................

ION ..........

OACH .......

HIEVEMENT

.....................

...............

...............

HE REPORT

.....................

OF ECONOMerent econo

OR ASSESS

.....................

E SHIP .........

OFILE .......

ODIFICATI

...............

Y .............

...............

TY ...............

CONOMIC I

ASSUMPTImptions .....

OMIC ASSE

YSES ........

3/57

.....................

.....................

................

................

TS .............

.....................

................

................

...............

.....................

MIC ASSESSomic scena

SING ENVIR

.....................

.....................

................

ONS ..........

................

................

................

.....................

MPACTS ...

ONS .........................

ESSMENT ..

................

W

.....................

.....................

...............

...............

...............

.....................

...............

...............

...............

.....................

SMENT .....arios ........

RONMENTA

.....................

.....................

...............

.....................

...............

...............

...............

.....................

...............

...............................

...............

...............

WP 6: New

.....................

.....................

................

................

................

.....................

................

................

................

.....................

................

................

AL IMPACTS

.....................

.....................

................

.....................

................

................

................

.....................

................

................

................

................

................

w scales an

.....................

.....................

................

................

................

.....................

................

................

................

.....................

................................

S ..............

.....................

.....................

................

.....................

................

................

................

.....................

................

................................

................

................

nd services

.................. 1

.................. 7

.............. 7

.............. 7

.............. 8

.................. 9

.............. 9

............ 10

............ 11

................ 13

............ 13

............ 15

............ 16

................ 19

................ 21

............ 21

................ 23

............ 23

............ 24

............ 25

................ 27

............ 27

............ 28

............ 28

............ 29

............ 30

s

7

7

7

8

9

9

0

3

3 5

6

9

3

3

4

5

7

7

8 8

9

0


4/57

7 ENVIRONMENTAL FEASIBILITY ................................................................................................... 33

7.1 INPUT DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................... 33

7.2 RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 33

7.3 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 35

PART B: RHEINLAND ................................................................................................................................. 37

8 DESCRIPTION OF THE SHIP .......................................................................................................... 39

8.1 OPERATIONAL PROFILE ................................................................................. 39

9 CONSIDERED SHIP MODIFICATIONS ....................................................................................... 41

9.1 SHIP STRUCTURE ........................................................................................... 41

9.2 MANOEUVRABILITY ....................................................................................... 41

9.3 POWERING .................................................................................................... 42

10 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ............................................................................................................ 43

10.1 COMMERCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS ............................................................. 43

10.2 INPUT DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................... 43 10.2.1 Specific assumptions .............................................................................. 44

10.3 RESULTS OF ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 44


11 ENVIRONMENTAL FEASIBILITY .............................................................................................. 47

11.1 INPUT DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................... 47

11.2 RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 47


12 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 51

12.1 THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS FOR HENDRIK: ....................................................... 51

12.2 MAIN CONCLUSIONS FOR RHEINLAND: .......................................................... 51

12.3 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 51

13 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 53

13.1 BOOKS AND ARTICLES ................................................................................... 53


5/57

13.2 WEBSITES ...................................................................................................... 53

14 INDEXES ............................................................................................................................................ 55

14.1 INDEX OF FIGURES ........................................................................................ 55

14.2 INDEX OF TABLES .......................................................................................... 55

14.3 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................ 56

1 Ex

1.1 PInland CO2 emterms osector PM), roother mextend by modbypassis needwaterwinsuffic The Moexistingsplit in positionThe sereport feasibil The aimbenefitsenvironvesselsthe firson man Each lethe ecologisticcurrentprofile investm Also thenvironcurrent

1.2 TThe aimproposcompashippinassump

xecutive

Problem Dshipping imissions oof energy is neededoad transpmodes is

50 years.dernising jused by otheded target

way sector cient knowl

oVe IT! prg ships. W

two clusten of relativecond clusis the lasity of the le

m of this ts once the

nmental ims were chot part of Wnoeuvrabili

engtheningonomic pral operatiot operationonce a ce

ment is con

e environmnmental imt performan

Technicalm of task 6ed lengthered with th

ng compaptions are

e Summ

Definitios consider

on a per toefficient a to mainta

port is alrethe long t The replaust througer transpoting the exespeciallyedge abou

roject aimsWP 6 focuse

ers. The fvely small ster assesst step of engthening

task is twoe vessel is

mpact of theosen, the H

WP 6. For eity and the

g step will rofile of thon of the nal profile ertain retronsidered.

mental impmpact the nce of the

l approa6.4 is to aening stepshe referencany conce

made whic

mary

on red the cle

on-km basisnd clean t

ain its leadeady outpetechnical aacement rah replacingrt sectors, xisting IW y the existiut how to m

s to develes on the mfirst clustervessels inses new

f the first g steps are

ofold: on tmodernize

e modernizHendrik aneach of the powering

impact thehe vessel vessel. Tof the ve

ofit option

pact will chchange invessels.

ch nalyse thes on the oce situatioerned. Toch are veri

7/57

eanest lans. Howevetechnologie

ding positioerforming Iand econoate of the fg older veesp. the rfleet. To

ing fleet smodernize

op concremost commr analysesn the fleet market opcluster w

e assessed

he one haed need tozing needsnd Rheinlae two vesserequireme

e businesschange; t

o analyseessel is co

is implem

ange oncen environm

e operationoperator’s bn which eq

o establishified with s

W

nd based ter other moes take-upon. For somIWT. One omic lifetimfleet is thessels by nroad sectoimprove thould be mthe inland

ete applicamon old ves the optio

(CEMT IIpportunitieswhere the d.

and the coo be estimas to be assand, these els severa

ents were a

s case of tthere migh the impaompared w

mented. Al

e the vessemental per

nal, logisticbusiness. quals the ch current

ship owners

WP 6: New

transport modes are qp and speeme emissireason fo

me of shiperefore rathnewer onesor, very soothe performmodernizewaterway

ations that essels in thns to imprand III) b

s for singleconomic

onsequenceated and oessed. In tvessels a

l lengtheniassessed.

the ship oht also be

acts of thewith the eso the pa

el is lengthrformance

cs and ecoThe effectcurrent op

operatins participat

w scales an

mode in tequickly catceding up oon catego

or IWT to lps, which her low. Ths, the secton. Therefomance of

ed. Currentfleet efficie

can be inhe fleet. Wrove the c

by lengthene hull tan

c and env

es on the on the othetask 6.0 tware used toing steps,

wner. Not e an impae retrofit oexpected oayback per

hened. To ais compa

onomic effets of each perating prog profilesting in the

nd services

erms of itsching up inof the IWT

ories (NOxlag behindcan easilyhis meanstor may beore, actionthe inlandtly there isently.

nstalled onWP6 can becompetitivening them

nkers. Thisironmenta

costs ander hand thewo possibleo carry outthe impact

only doesact on theoptions theoperationariod of the

assess thered to the

ects of theoption areofile of thes, generaproject.

s

s n T ,

d y ,

e n d s

n e e . s l

d e e t t

s e e l

e

e e

e e e l


8/57

For each of the five lengthening options, the main economic advantages and drawbacks were identified by the Move-IT WP6 partners jointly with the ship operators and checked with the technical partners to ensure consistency and reliability. From tasks 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 cost estimates for the lengthening, impacts on maintenance costs and effects on fuel consumption were provided. These estimates are the basis of the analyses made to assess the feasibility of each lengthening option. For each vessel several options are calculated, and the results are compared to the reference situation. The payback time of the investment is calculated as well as other indicators, i.e. the internal rate of return (IRR) and the net present value (NPV).

1.3 Results and Achievements Lengthening of small inland vessels (by contemporary standards) is found to be economically feasible. It seems that vessels that fall within the CEMT II and III class can benefit from this retrofit option, as is shown from the business cases for the MV Hendrik and the MV Rheinland conducted in this task. Based on the analysis done and also in line with the results of the lengthening done in WP 7.2, inland vessels already need to have a critical mass to ensure that the lengthening will be economically feasible. If a vessel is too small, as is the case for e.g. the MV Rheinland, lengthening will be less feasible, especially when the vessel is only lengthened by only 6 metres. To make lengthening a feasible option the benefits need to outweigh the investment costs. From an environmental perspective it seems desirable to install a propeller in nozzle instead of a naked propeller, which is commonly found on old inland ships. The propeller in nozzle is able to reduce the fuel consumption and therefore the amount of CO2 emissions. To have more effect of the propeller in nozzle the vessel should also reduce its speed. In this case the implementation of the nozzle is most effective.

2 Int

2.1 BDue to transpomodes or carg On topuse foshigher from 20on the losing transpo In ordeknown efficienhave astrategefficienimportashows Europe Table 2Tonnagvessel 0 – 650650 – 11500 – 3000 – Over 40Average Currenfleet efObjecti

• • • •

v•

WP6 ccompet

troduct

Backgrouthe liberal

ort sector h(road, rail

go markets

p of that, thssil fuels (fuel bills.

009, freighmarket, trmore and

ort.

er to copeas the cle

nt than it aa very lony of phasin

nt ones is nant to modthe avera

ean fleet is

2.1 Averagege of the

tons 500t tons 3000 tons 4000 tons

000 tons e age of pus

tly there isfficiently. Tives of the Improve thImproving Improve thImprove tvessels to Finding nereconstruc

an be splititive posit

tion

und ization of thas increa and IWT)).

he fuel prie.g. dieselDue to th

ht rates anransport cod more gr

with the eanest andalready is, g life spang out of enot easily ernize andge age peof similar

e age of WeBuild

Ca. 1Ca. 1Ca. 1Ca. 2Ca. 2

shing units

s insufficieThe goal o

project arehe hydrodythe operat

he performthe constrmeet new

ew trades fction of par

t in two clion of the

the Europesed consid) and within

ces have l, gasolinee sharpend transporompanies round to t

increased d most fueas to imprn and rem

existing inedone, take

d improve ter vessel cage, thoug

estern Euroding year

1950 1960-19701995 (110 m2000 (135m2005 (barge and

ent knowleof the MoVe:

ynamic behtional perfoance of enruction (al

w requiremefor existingrts of the v

usters. Thsmaller ve

9/57

ean continederably. Thn the same

increased e and gasoned comperted volumhave to b

the other

competitioel-efficient rove businmain in thefficient veses too longthe existingclass in Wgh in some

opean vessCla

CECE

m ship) CEm) CE

>Cd pushers) is

dge aboutVe IT! proje

haviour of tormance (Wngines (WPso when ents) (WP5g vessel aessel (WP

he first clusessels in th

W

ental transhis appliese mode (e

during theoil) and theetition as a

mes have decome momodes lik

on and cotransport m

ness operae market ssels and rg, and is mg vessel fle

Western Eue places ma

sels assificatio

EMT I and IEMT III and EMT V EMT VI CEMT VI s 20 years

t how to mect is to o

the ships inWP3); P4);

integratin5); nd/or impr6).

ster analyshe fleet (C

WP 6: New

sport markes both the c.g. betwee

e last yeare rising fuea result of decreased.ore efficienke rail and

ost increasmode, nee

ations. Howfor a con

replace themuch too ceet as welrope. On aaintenance

n

I IV

modernize obtain the

nvolved (W

g new st

roving their

ses the opCEMT II an

w scales an

et competicompetitio

en vessel t

rs. All model prices hthe econo

To stay cnt. Especiad in partic

ses, inlandeds to becwever inlannsiderable em by newcostly. Thel. The folloaverage the levels are

Average a

60 years 45 years 25 years 15 years 5 years

the inlandrequired k

WP2);

tructures i

r competiti

ptions to imnd III) by le

nd services

tion on then betweenypes and /

des mainlyhave led toomic crisiscompetitiveally IWT iscular road

d shipping,come morend vesselstime. The

w and moreerefore it isowing tablehe Easterne low.

ge

waterwayknowledge

n existing

iveness by

mprove theengthening

s

e n /

y o s e s d

, e s e e s e n

y .

g

y

e g


10/57

them. The second cluster assesses new market opportunities. WP6 consists of seven tasks and an 8th task (task 0) that was added after the start of the project:

New scales 0. Added Task – concentrates on identification of vessels that should be lengthened

(6.0); 1. Focus on ship structure, especially lengthening (6.1); 2. Impact of ship lengthening on manoeuvring (6.2); 3. Impact of ship lengthening and repowering on powering requirements (6.3); 4. Synthesizing the outcomes of the previous tasks and assessing the economic

and environmental impacts (6.4).

New services 5. Evaluating technical solutions to adjust to climate change (6.5); 6. Evaluating possibilities for the transport of CO2 (6.6); 7. Evaluating new markets for single hull tankers (6.7).

2.2 Aim of task 6.4 The aim of this task is twofold: on the one hand the consequences on the costs and benefits once the vessel is modernized need to be estimated and on the other hand the environmental impact of the modernizing needs to be assessed. In task 6.1 two example vessels were selected, the Hendrik and Rheinland, which may be considered examples of the types of vessels that should be lengthened. These vessels are used to carry out the first part of WP 6 (tasks 6.2 to 6.4). For each of the two vessels several lengthening steps, their impact on manoeuvrability and the associated powering requirements were assessed. Each lengthening step will impact the business case of the ship owner. Not only does the economic profile of the vessel change; there might also be an impact on the logistical operations of the vessel. To analyse the impacts of the retrofit options the current operational profile of the vessel is compared with the expected operational profile once a certain retrofit option is implemented. Also the payback period of the investment is considered. Also the environmental impact will change once the vessel is lengthened. To assess the environmental impact the change in environmental performance is compared to the current performance of the vessels. As no details on the operating profile and current environmental performance were known to the Consortium some expert judgements were made in order to carry out both the economic and environmental assessment. The result of task 6.4 is an overview of the impacts of the different lengthening steps considered. The approach chosen within WP6 is considered classical and while two typical class II and III vessels were chosen, it is assumed that the conclusions derived apply to other similar vessels as well. It is noted that apart from the technical characteristics also the operational profile has a large influence on the economic viability.


11/57

2.3 Structure of the report Chapter 3 describes the methodology used to assess the economic feasibility of the proposed retrofit options. The main assumptions are presented as well as the evaluation criteria. The chapter also describes the methodology used to assess the environmental performance of the vessels considered. The remaining of the report is divided into two parts that each have the same structure. Part A focuses on the larger inland vessel, Hendrik, and part B describes the smaller inland vessel assessed, the Rheinland. For both vessels a general description is provided (chapters 4 and 8), the proposed retrofit options are described (chapters 5 and 9), the economic assessment is described (chapters 6 and 10) and the environmental assessment is carried out (chapters 7 and 11). Chapter 12 provides the main research findings and in chapter 13 the literature used is presented.

3 Me

3.1 MThe aimproposcompashippinassumpThe as For eacadvantathe shiconsist From tacosts athe anasevera Table 3

NPV IRR Paybac For easituatiocompathe shimoneyback hi Anothecompainvestmflows) flows) retrofit A last policy discountoday taccounretrofit

11 Two lengt

ethodol

Methodolm of task 6ed lengthered with th

ng compaptions are sumptions

ch of the fages and ip operatotency and r

asks 6.1, 6and effectsalyses madl options a

3.1 Present

k period

ach of theon is calcunies the paip owner h. The loweis investme

er indicatorres the p

ment is theof the invof the inveoption.

indicator urelated dented: cashto the pre

nt. The higoption.

thening steps for f

logy

logy of e6.4 is to aening stepshe referencany conce

made whs made for

five lengthdrawbacksrs, and chreliability.

6.2 and 6.3s on fuel code to assere calculat

tation of ouReferencesituation

options tulated, as ayback pehas earneer the payent.

r used is thprofitability e discount vestment eestment. T

used is thecisions anh inflows aesent valuegher the va

fhe Rheinland and

economicnalyse thes on the oce situatioerned. Toich are vethe two sp

hening optis were idehecked wit

3 cost estimonsumptio

ess the feated, so the

utcomes fee R

the changwell as th

riod is the ed back hiyback perio

he internalof differe

rate at whequals the The higher

e Net prend indicate

and cash oe of monealue of this

d three lengthenin

13/57

c assesse operationoperator’s bn which eq

o establiserified with pecific ship

ons considentified by th the part

mates for tn were prosibility of e results loo

asibility asRetrofit opt

e in operhe paybacmost relev

is initial inod is the s

l rate of reent optionhich the ne

net preser the IRR i

esent valuees the ‘difoutflows. Itey in the s indicator

g steps for the He

W

sment nal, logisticbusiness. quals the ch currentship owne

ps are discu

dered in ththe MoVe

tners with

the lengtheovided. Theach lengthok similar t

ssessmention 1 Ret

ating costck time of vant indicanvestment sooner the

eturn (IRR)s or moreet present ent value is the mor

e (NPV). Tfference at comparefuture, tak

r the more

endrik were consid

WP 6: New

cs and ecoThe effectcurrent opt operatiners participussed in ch

he project1e IT! WP6

technical

ening, impaese estimahening optto:

trofit option

ts comparethe inves

ator. This inand when

e ship own

). This indie specificvalue of cof the be

re profitabl

This indicaamount’ bes the presking inflatiattractive

dered.

w scales an

onomic effets of each perating prong profilespating in thhapters 6 a

1 the mainpartners jexpertise

acts on maates are thtion. For ea

n 2 Retrof

ed to the stment. Fondicator shn he startsner will ha

icator meaally the Icosts (negnefits (posle it is to i

ator is ofteetween thesent value ion and reit is to inv

nd services

ects of theoption areofile of thes generahe projectand 11.

economicjointly withto ensure

aintenancehe basis ofach vesse

fit option 3

referenceor shippinghows whens to make

ave earned

asures andRR of an

gative cashsitive cashinvest in a

en used ine sums ofof money

eturns intovest in the

s

e e e l .

c h e

e f l

3

e g n e d

d n h h a

n f y o e


14/57

General assumptions Several general assumptions are made, which apply to all shipping companies and all retrofit options. The first assumption relates to the time horizon used to calculate the effects. Apart from the investments costs, which occur only once, all other costs components are recurring. Some of them recur every year, e.g. the casco insurance premium and wages of employees, while other cost components only occur every two or three years, e.g. large maintenance costs. The time horizon chosen is set at 25 years. The second assumption relates to the discount rate. All future costs or benefits are expressed in their present value, so all effects will be discounted to the year of investment. The year of investment is assumed to be 20162. By discounting the costs and effects, costs and effects later in time count less heavily than costs and effects made earlier in time. The discount rate used in the analysis is 5.5%. The third assumption relates to the prices used. All effects will be expressed in Euros, and data obtained in other currencies are converted to Euros. The effects will all be expressed in real prices and the price level used is price level 2013.

Main effects – direct effects: • Investment costs: One of the most important aspects in the economic

evaluation is the investment costs needed to obtain the new retrofit option. For each of the options the partners with technical expertise have estimated the investment costs. It is assumed that the investment costs will all fall in one year and can be qualified as one-of costs;

• Maintenance costs: Closely related to the investment costs are the additional costs for maintenance. Installing a new engine or place a new rudder arrangement might cause an increase of the maintenance costs. It is assumed that maintenance related to the retrofit installation is needed every couple of years, and assumptions on this are made for each option. This means associated costs are included in the analysis using the assumed frequency (e.g. every 2 years, 3 years, etc.).

Main effects – operational profile • Fuel consumption: Depending on the retrofit option chosen, fuel consumption of

the vessel may increase or decrease. Most of the technical improvements suggested in the previous Work packages will result in a decrease of the fuel consumption of the vessel, resulting in a lower fuel bill, assuming that fuel prices remain constant. However some options, e.g. lengthening of the vessel, will increase the fuel consumption and therefore increase the fuel bill. For estimating the fuel prices the CBRB Gas oil circulars for inland shipping are used;

2 The MoVe-IT project ends in November 2014. It is assumed that companies need 2015 to ensure financing,

make arrangements, e.g. reserve yard space and decide on the retrofit options. The first possible year of investment is 2016.


15/57

• Insurance costs: In inland shipping there two important types of insurances; the casco insurance or the hull and machinery insurance (H&M) and the protection and indemnity insurance (P&I). For the economic evaluation the casco insurance is the most important one, because the modernisation of the vessel will influence the height of the casco insurance. Insurance costs may increase if a technology is implemented that is much more expensive then the systems in place in the reference situation. On the other hand as it may concern a replacement by a newer and more reliable system, in some cases perhaps premiums can be reduced, because the chance of failure had reduced;

• Capital costs: The financial picture of the company can change due to the retrofitting of the vessel. To finance a retrofit option it is assumed that the shipping company has to obtain an additional loan from a bank or from another investor. The interest costs will probably increase and the company faces higher financing costs than before.

Additional effects • Cargo volumes: Cargo carrying capacity can change due to the retrofit

modernization of the ship. For most proposed retrofit options this effects will be limited, as cargo capacity or sailing speeds will not change. However in case the vessel is lengthened the ship’s capacity will increase allowing larger volumes to be transported, resulting in a revenue increase (assuming sufficient demand). On the other hand some other retrofit options may cause a (slight) reduction of the cargo capacity of the vessel;

• Labour costs: labour costs could be affected by the modernisation of the vessel. This could concern the need for hiring additional personnel to comply with current legislation, or the need for additional training, which brings (temporary) additional costs. The first impact may occur when a vessel is lengthened, and if a threshold in manning regulations is passed, additional crew is required. On the other hand the retrofit option can require additional skills of the employees for which and additional training is required.

3.1.1 Assessing different economic scenarios As assumptions are made which are uncertain, while the base case development may also be uncertain (e.g. how will the IW market develop, what will the level of fuel prices be in future years, etc.), for each ship/retrofit option combination, multiple scenarios will be tested. Generally we assess a baseline scenario (e.g. applying the middle assumptions on costs and impacts), a high, and a low scenario (using the range ends of costs and impacts estimated. These will be presented as sensitivity tests on the baseline scenario. As the uncertainties on assumptions vary between the ships and retrofit options, no standard scenarios for all ships are developed, but the baseline and alternative scenarios are made for each ship/retrofit option specifically. However general inputs such as interest rates, residual values or fuel prices are applied similar for all ships.


16/57

3.2 Methodology for assessing environmental impacts The second aim of task 6.4 is to assess the environmental impact of the retrofit options proposed in tasks 6.1 – 6.3. The emissions considered in the assessment are:

• Carbon dioxide (CO2); • Nitrogen oxide (NOx); • Particular matter (PM); • Hydrocarbon (HC); • Carbon monoxide (CO); • Sulphur dioxide (SO2).

The emissions are related to the change in fuel consumption and are compared to the situation without any retrofit option. The emissions are presented as yearly values and values related to the transport performance in ton kilometres (tkm). Fuel consumption is estimated for all lengthening options considered. Also a distinction is made between the fuel consumption in case the vessel uses a naked propeller and the fuel consumption in case the vessel has a propeller with nozzle. The fuel consumption and therefore the emissions will increase due to lengthening of the vessel as the vessel requires more power to achieve the same performance. Taking only this aspect into account lengthening might not be a desirable option from an environmental point of view. However not only the fuel consumption of the vessel changes, but also the cargo carrying capacity will increase significantly. Due to this increase in cargo carrying capacity the relative values (kg emission / tkm) can be lower than without lengthening of the vessel. This can make lengthening, also from an environmental perspective, a more favourable option than doing nothing. The total emissions per year are determined using the following equation: where FC is the total fuel consumption per year in kg and EF is the respective emission factor given in kg/fuel for CO2 and g/fuel for all other emission factors. The factors used are based on the factors used in other studies. The factors are the same factors that are used in the environmental assessment in WP7. The following table shows the factors used in this study. Table 3.2 Emission factors for inland waterway vessels CO2 NOx PM HC CO SO2 Source kg / kg fuel g / kg/fuel g / kg/fuel g / kg/fuel g / kg/fuel g / kg/fuel 3,175 57 0,83 3,4 6,5 0,02 VBD, 2001 3,173 46 2,116 5,1 19 0,02 TNO, 2010 Source: VBD (2001) and TNO (2010). It is noted that the differences between TNO and VBD (now DST) data is large. Reasons for deviations are the uncertainty associated with PM measurements as well as the fact that the emission factors are average values over different power classes of engines. In this study the TNO figures will be the leading factors as the study is more


17/57

recent. For more information on the methodology used, please see Deliverable 7.3 ‘Environmental impact’.

Par

19/57

rt A: He

W

endrik

WP 6: Neww scales annd servicess

4 DeThe HDuijventhe vesholds a BetweeConsorlengtheassignmqualifiemeasu Table 4 Length Beam DraughtDisplaceMain enSource: h Figure

Source: w

4.1 OAs the severaenvironbetwee100 km It is alsnot saioperateAs the client o48 sing

escriptiendrik (cundijk, locatssel had tware covered

en 1975 anrtium whenening is noment is theed as a Crements of

4.1 Main ch

t ement

ngine http://www.deb

4.1 Impres

www.debinnen

Operationactual op

l assumpnmental asen Duisburm and so a

so assumel the wholees 48 weevessel is

only and is gle trips an

on of thurrently naed in Krim

wo separatd with slidi

nd 1990 thn this lengtot considere original

CEMT III of the vesse

haracteristi

binnenvaart.nl

ssion of the

nvaart.nl (left)

nal profilperating protions havssessment

rg and Coloround trip

d that the e year rounks per yeasailing on carrying cd the othe

he shipamed Alk) pen a/d IJte cargo hong hatch c

e vessel wthening prered in the length of tor CEMT el.

cs of the H

/schip_detail/

e Hendrik

& www.binne

le ofile of the

ve been t. It is asogne, Germhas a leng

vessel pernd. In the

ar and so ta short d

cargo only r remaining

21/57

was builtssel. The lolds with acovers to p

was lengtheecisely tooanalysis a

the vessel,IV vesse

Hendrik (19 698.62.913SK

1649/.

nvaart.eu (righ

e vessel ismade whssumed thmany. A ongth of 200

rforms maxcalculationhe maximuistance it ione way ag 48 trips t

W

t in 1975 length of tha length of protect the

ened to 80ok place. Fand the st, hence 70l. Followin

75)

9.98 m 60 m 95 m

360 ton KL 660 PK 6

ht).

s unknownhich are hat the vene way tripkm.

ximum onens it is therum numbeis assume

and therefothe vessel

WP 6: New

at the Dhe vessel wf 20.0 metrcargo.

0.0 metres.For researcarting poin0.0 metresng table p

6 NVD 48 –

n to the Mused in

essel operp has a len

e round triprefore assuer of trips ped that the ore the ves

does not c

w scales an

Dutch yardwas 70.0 mres each. B

. It is unknch purposent of the les. The vessprovides th

– 2U

oVe IT! Cthe econrates on

ngth of app

p per weekumed that performed

vessel sassel is only carry cargo

nd services

Joh. vanmetres andBoth cargo

own to thees this pastengtheningsel can behe origina

onsortiumnomic andthe Rhine

proximately

k and doesthe vesseequals 48

ails for oneloaded on

o.

s

n d o

e t

g e l

, d e y

s l . e n

5 CoThis chsevera6.2 ascarryingonce th

5.1 SIn taskanalysi(80.0 mrules. Elength o The folengthe Table 5 Max. drTotal caholds Additionin holdsRelativeSource: M For eacthe ove

onsiderhapter prel lengthen

ssessed thg out sevehe vessel is

Ship struck 6.1 the s is the or

metres). ThEach lengof one TEU

ollowing taening optio

5.1 Max. dra

raught argo in

nal cargo s e change Move-it WP 6,

ch of the oerall costs

red shipesents the ing steps

he manoeeral manoes lengthen

cture lengtheninriginal lenghe structurthening stU) and in to

able showon. For eac

aught and Loa(m) (t)

(t)

(%) task 6.1 final

options a dper lengthe

p modifioutcomes

were consuvrability euvrability ed taking i

ng option ogth of the re of the vitep is 6.0 otal 5 leng

ws the mach new opt

additional 70 m Loa2.960 1.114

-

- report.

detailed coening step

23/57

icationss of tasks sidered anof the vetests. Tas

into accou

of the Hevessel (70rtually lengmetres (w

gthening ste

aximum drion also th

cargo for da 76m Lo

2.9521.241

128

11.5

ost estimatp and the c

W

s 6.1 to 6.3

d for eachessel undesk 6.3 assent different

ndrik is a0.0 metresgthened ve

which correeps were c

raft and toe additiona

different leoa 82m L

2.9451.373

259

23.3

te was maosts per m

WP 6: New

3 for the h of the ster differenessed the t water dep

nalysed. Ss) instead oessel compesponds wconsidered

otal cargoal cargo ca

engtheningLoa 88m

2.940 1.502

388

34.9

ade. The fometre.

w scales an

Hendrik. Iteps considnt circums

power reqpths and c

Starting poof the currplies with c

with the apd.

o capacityapacity is p

steps Loa 90m

2.938 1.545

432

38.8

ollowing ta

nd services

n task 6.1dered task

stances byquirementsurrents.

oint of therent lengthcurrent GLpproximate

y for eachpresented.

Loa 95m2.9341.653

539

48.4

able shows

s

1 k y s

e h L e

h

43

9

4

s


24/57

Table 5.2 Summary of costs per lengthening step for MV ’Hendrik’ Loa

76mLoa 82m

Loa 88m

Loa 90m

Loa 95m

Lengthening step ΔL (m) 6.0 12.0 18.0 20.0 25.0New hull section (€) 35.000 88.000 126.000 142.000 178.000Upgrade existing parts (€) 18.000 18.000 18.000 18.000 18.000Hatch cover (€) 10.000 20.000 30.000 33.300 41.700Total (€) 64.000 126.000 175.000 193.300 237.700

Costs per meter of the new section (steel)

(€/m) 10.500 10.500 9.700 9.700 9.500

Costs for additional modification (structure)

(€/m) 1,000 1,900

Costs per meter of the new section (dry dock per week)

(€/m) 1,200 600 400 400 300

Total cost per m (€/m) 11,700 11,100 10,100 11,100 11,700Source: Move-it WP 6, task 6.1 final report. In task 6.1 it was concluded that, although the lengthening steps Loa 90m and Loa 95m are technically feasible, they are too comprehensive as a retrofit option, because various additional changes in the structure of the forward and aft part of the vessel would be needed to meet GL requirements. Therefore these options are rather complex ones and are no longer considered in the remaining part of the analysis; see the task 6.1 report for further details.

5.2 Manoeuvrability Manoeuvrability and the impact of lengthening of the vessel on the manoeuvrability is the main focus of task 6.2. To establish the effect of lengthening on a vessel’s manoeuvrability four different tests were conducted:

1. Combined turning circle / pull-out manoeuvres; 2. Standard zigzag manoeuvres; 3. Evasive manoeuvres; and 4. Crash stop manoeuvres.

The analysis was carried out for three different lengths of the vessel. The first length is the original length of 70.0 metres and the tests were also done for lengths of 82 metres and 95 metres. All tests are carried out for different water levels, to establish the effects in deep water as well as shallow water. The depths considered were 3.5 m, 5 m, and 20 m. On top of that different speed levels were taken into account and each test was carried out for a speed of 10 km/h and 13 km/h. The lengthening of the vessel was found to have no significant impact on the turning ability and directional stability of the vessel (the combined turning circle and pull-out manoeuvres). In shallow water the turning ability of the vessel is worse, but to improve the turning ability the vessel could decrease it approach speed. Further no improvements are needed. The same conclusions are drawn for the yaw checking ability and the initial turning ability (zigzag manoeuvres).


25/57

Lengthening of Hendrik has a small influence on the evasive manoeuvring ability. In shallow water the capabilities of the vessel are reduced and to solve the problem the rudder dimensions and characteristics could be improved. The lengthening does not affect the stopping ability (crash stop manoeuvres) of the vessel and no action is needed with regard to the stopping ability of the vessel.

5.3 Powering In task 6.3 the influence of lengthening the vessel on the powering arrangement is analysed. The Hendrik is a single-propelled vessel, with a SKL 660 PK 6 NVD 48 – 2U engine. The vessel has one naked propeller with diameter of 1.5 metres. It is estimated that the maximum speed of the vessel with its initially installed engine is 19.5 km/h, however the vessel hardly sails at maximum speed. In the analysis not only the effect of the lengthening on the required power is analysed, but also the water depth is considered. The lengthening itself does not significantly influence the power needed to achieve a certain speed. Therefore the same power train (engine, gearbox and propeller) was considered for all lengthening steps. It should be noted that the power train is renewed in the analysis, but the technical specifications remain more or less the same. Speed reductions of 1 to 2 km/h as result of the lengthening might occur in case the water depth changes. In shallow water (from deep to h= 5m and then from 5m to 3.5 m) the speed reduction of Hendrik is around 4 km/h. In very shallow water the maximum speed is even further reduced due to squat. The maximum allowed speed for the vessel is 13 km/h for h=5 m and 8 km/h for h=3.5 m. The installation of a propeller in nozzle will improve the propulsive efficiency compared to the naked propeller. The expected improvement is around 10% which can increase the speed for 1 km/h.

6 Ec

6.1 CThe opaim is tthe comoperatesail witthe othrevenu Lengthcompalengthethe samconsumof the consumtable sh Table 6 Ship’s (m) 69.98 76 82 88 Besidelengthecarryingthe car18 met In the tshows more cfuel con Table 6 Ship’s (m) 69.98 76 82 88

conomic

Commercptions propto increasempany to tes on the h a lower d

her hand te per trip.

ening of thny. First a

ening it is eme operatimption will increased

mption of thows the a

6.1 Total fue

length

s an increening of thg capacity rgo carryintres the ad

table belowthe fuel c

cargo, this nsumption

6.2 Fuel con

length

c feasib

cial / ecoosed mighe the cargotransport tRhine, a rdraught, ththe compa

he vessel wnd foremoexpected ting speed.increase, ship capathe Hendrabsolute in

el consumRelatiNaked

propell30323539

ase in fuee cargo hoincreases

g capacityditional ca

w the fuel consumptiois irrespec per ton is

nsumptionRelatNaked

propell

bility

onomic imht influenceo capacity the same ariver with flhe companany can tra

will have sst the fuel that the ve. Accordingeven in caacity. The rik under dcrease in f

ption of Heive speed 1d er

P

0,049 2,962 5,936 9,095

el consumpold. In cas

s with 127 ty increasesrgo carryin

consumpton per tonctive the sp

even furth

n of Hendrikive speed 1d er

P

0.75 0.74 0.73 0.72

27/57

mpacts e the logistof the vesamount of luctuating

ny is able tansport m

some impaconsumpt

essel will cg to the fin

ase a propefollowing

different refuel consu

endrik in lit10.0 km/hPropeller in

nozzle 24,526,628,830,9

ption the vese the vestons, in cass with 258 ng capacity

tion per tran decreasepeed that iher reduced

k in litre pe10.0 km/hPropeller in

nozzle 0000

W

tical operassel. On the

cargo witwater leveo operate

more cargo

acts on thetion of the

consume mndings in teller in noztable pro

elative spemption.

tre per yea

n Nake

530676823969

essel is absel is lengse the vestons and iny is 388 ton

ansported es, once ts sailed. Ind.

er ton trans

n Nake

0.610.600.580.57

WP 6: New

ation of thee one handh a lower

els, and if longer tha than befo

business vessel wil

more fuel iftask 6.3 it zzle is instavides an oeeds and

ar on RhineRelative s

ed propelle

59,7265,8972,0778,24

ble to carrygthened byssel is lengn case of ans.

ton is prehe vessel n case a n

sported Relative s

ed propelle

1.481.471.451.44

w scales an

company.d this optiodraught. Tthe vessel

an it is nowore and in

case of thl change. f it wants tis likely thalled. Thisoverview oretrofit op

e speed 14.4 er Pro

n26 98 70 43

y more cay 6 metresthened by a lengthen

sented. Asis able to

nozzle is in

speed 14.4 er Pro

n89 75 59 47

nd services

. The mainon enablesThe vessel is able to

wadays. Onncrease its

he shippingDue to theo maintain

hat the fues is a resultof the fue

ptions. The

km/h peller in

nozzle 47,56352,82758,27463,538

rgo due tos the cargo

12 metresing step of

s the tableo transportnstalled the

km/h peller in

nozzle 1.1861.1821.1801.175

s

n s l

o n s

g e n l t l

e

3748

o o s f

e t

e

6205

6.2 InAs deinvestmabout €task 6.order towill be is renewstep thoperateThe invas wellfrom ainvestm For all will notand ontime the It is asand wil Table 6 Investm(lengtheengine)InvestmrenewaInvestmpropelleTime atMaintenAddition(tons) Δ insura

6.2.1 1.

o

2. a

3 Base4 The c

addit5 Base

nput datascribed b

ment costs€ 70,400.- 2 it was ao improve renewed awed in all

he main ee the vessevestments l as the ins

a naked pment for the

three optiot change d

nce the vese vessel n

sumed thal increase

6.3 Overvie

ment costs ening and n

ment costs rul

ment costs er and nozzt yard nance costsnal ship cap

ance costs

Specific It is assumof these co

In case oavailable f

ed on expert jucosts for a newional to the inv

ed on expert ju

a and asbefore, thrs of lengthfor Loa 76

advised to the manoe

and that thoptions congine neeel in the sacosts for t

stallation cropeller toe new prop

ons it is codue to lengssel is in deeds to be

at the additthe initial i

w of data i

new

udder

le

s pacity

assumpmed that thommodities

of lengthenfor the fuel

udgement. Thew propeller arevestment cost

udgement.

sumptioree lengthhening only6m, € 133,

improve oeuvrability e investme

onsidered. eds to be ame way. Tthe new encosts. In tao a propepeller and

onsidered tgthening adry dock the at the yar

tional insuinsurance

nput

€

€

ptions he vessel ts a transpo

ning the fl consump

e price chosene only considets mentioned i

28/57

ons hening stey (so no i400.- for Lor renew tof the vesent costs aIn task 6.3changed

Total costsngine consask 6.3 it weller in noznozzle is €

hat the timas the lenghe total lerd.

rance costcosts by 1

Loa 76m€ 303,200

€ 100,000

€ 57,500

4 weeks€ 0

127

+ 10%

ransports ort price pe

fuel consution of the

n allows for reered in the optin table 6.2.

W

eps are cnstallation

Loa 82m athe ruddersel. It is as

are € 100,03 it was advas well, to

s for the nesist of bothwas also azzle. It is

€ 57,500.4

me at yard igthened pangth of the

ts are the 0%.

bulk, e.g. er ton of €

umption w main and

enewal of the etion where the

WP 6: New

consideredn of a propnd € 182,0r arrangemssumed th000 euros3

vised that o ensure eew engine h the sellindvised to c

assumed

is four weeart is pre-pe new part

same for a

Loa 82m € 366,200

€ 100,000

€ 57,500

4 weeks € 0

259

+ 10%

agricultura24, - is co

will rise. A auxiliary e

entire rudder se propeller is r

w scales an

d for Henpeller in n000.- for Lo

ment of theat the rudd3. The ruddfor each leenough poadd up to €

ng price of change the

d that the

eks. The timproduced at is irrelev

all lengthe

al productsnsidered.5

As no infoengine it is

system. replaced and t

nd services

ndrik. Thenozzle) areoa 88m. Ine vessel inder systemder systemengtheningowering to€ 232.800an engine

e propelleradditiona

me at yardat the yardant for the

ening steps

Loa 88m€ 414,800

€ 100,000

€ 57,500

4 weeks€ 0

388

+ 10%

s. For each

rmation iss assumed

the costs are

s

e e n n m m g o .

e r l

d d e

s

m0

0

0

s08

%

h

s d


29/57

that the fuel consumption used only compromises the main engine. The consumption of the auxiliary engines will not change as a result of the lengthening. Therefore, to calculate the fuel increase only the fuel consumption of the main engine is considered.

3. To lengthen the vessel, the vessel needs to go in dry-dock for 4 weeks. It is

assumed that the vessel performs one round trip per week, for instance between Nurnberg and Regensburg in Germany. Therefore the vessel will miss 4 round trips and its related revenues.

4. Inland vessels are often not fully loaded. The Hendrik was compared with other

vessels sailing on the Rhine and it is assumed that the load factor of the vessel is 75%. This is more or less equal to the load factors of similar vessels. It is assumed, that also when the vessel is lengthened, the vessel will not be fully loaded. According the task 6.1 the additional cargo capacity for Loa 76 m is 127 tons, for Loa 82 m is 259 tons and for Loa 88 m is 388 tons. For the additional capacity it is assumed that 75% will be used, equalling 95, 192 and respectively 289 tons (assuming there is sufficient demand).

6.3 Results of economic assessment The economic assessment is carried out for two different relative speeds. The first table presents the results when a relative speed of 10.0 km/h is used, which is the lowest speed considered in the analysis. The upstream speed equals 5.0 km/h and the downstream speed 15.0 km/h. A distinction is made between the option of only lengthening the vessel with 6, 12 or 18 metres and the option of also changing the propeller from a naked propeller to a propeller in nozzle. Table 6.4 Outcome of economic assessment for relative speed of 10.0 km/h Loa 76m Loa 82m Loa 88m Naked

propeller Propeller in nozzle

Naked propeller

Propeller in nozzle

Naked propeller

Propeller in nozzle

NPV (x 1000) € 791 € 801 € 2,073 € 2,091 € 3,355 € 3,383IRR 23% 21% 53% 48% 93% 83%Payback time 6 years 6 years 3 years 3 years 2 years 2 years As the table shows most retrofit options are economically feasible with a maximum payback period of 5 years. Lengthening the vessel with only 6 metres has a payback period of six years. These options will not be feasible from a ship owner’s perspective and these options will probably not be chosen. According to interviews held with different ship owners their desirable payback period is between 3-4 years as a maximum. If this criterion is followed only the lengthening option of 76 m with a propeller in nozzle is not a feasible option for them. However it should be noted that one the economic climate is improving this might be a viable option as well. The same analysis was carried out for the higher relative speed of 14.4 km/h. The upstream speed in this situation is 9.4 km/h and the downstream speed equals 19.4 km/h. The results are shown in the following table.


30/57

Table 6.5 Outcome of economic assessment for relative speed of 14.4 km/h Loa 76m Loa 82m Loa 88m Naked


Naked propeller

Propeller in nozzle

Naked propeller

Propeller in nozzle

NPV (x 1000) € 760 € 835 € 2,011 € 2,093 € 3,264 € 3,356IRR 22% 22% 51% 48% 89% 82%Payback time 6 years 6 years 3 years 3 years 2 years 2 years The results of this analysis are more or less similar to the results of the analysis with a relative speed of 10.0 km/h. Also in this analysis all options are economically feasible. However ship owners will probably not use for the lengthening options of 76 metres as the payback period is beyond their desired pay back periods.

6.4 Sensitivity analyses The following tables show the outcome of the sensitivity analyses carried out for the lengthening options. All analyses are carried out for a relative speed of 10.0 km/h which is probably the speed most often used. The first analysis carried out focuses on lengthening the vessel by 6 metres and the installation of a propeller in nozzle. This option is chosen as it is the option with the longest payback period. Changes in fuel price, investment costs or transport prices might make this option a less desirable one. Each of these effects is considered separately and a worst case and best case scenario are presented. Table 6.6 Outcome of sensitivity analysis Loa 76 m and propeller in nozzle (relative speed 10.0 km/h) Investment costs Fuel price Transport price Base

case -20% +20% -10% +10% -25% +25%

NPV (x 1000)

€ 801 € 880 € 723 € 798 € 805 € 505 € 1,098

IRR 21% 26% 18% 21% 21% 16% 26%Payback time

6 years 5 years 7 years 6 years 6 years 8 years 5 years

The sensitive analysis shows that this retrofit option is most sensitive to changes in the investment costs and transport price. The option becomes less attractive once the investment costs increase by 20% or the transport prices drop by 25%. In these cases the payback period will be seven respectively eight years and ship owners indicated that the desirable payback period is 3 to 4 years. However if the investment costs decrease or the transport prices increase it become more attractive to invest in this option as the payback period is shortened to five years in both scenarios. It seems that this retrofit option is not very sensitive for changes in the fuel price as the pay back remains the same in both situations. The same sensitive analysis was done for lengthening the vessel with 6 metres, but without changing the propeller arrangement.


31/57

Table 6.7 Outcome of sensitivity analysis Loa 76 m and naked propeller (relative speed 10.0 km/h) Investment costs Fuel price Transport price Base

case -20% +20% -10% +10% -25% +25%

NPV (x 1000)

€ 791 € 859 € 722 € 793 € 788 € 494 € 1,087

IRR 23% 28% 19% 23% 23% 17% 28%Payback time

6 years 5 years 7 years 6 years 6 years 8 years 5 years

According to the sensitivity analysis carried out this option is also sensitive to increases in investments costs and decrease in transport prices. The conclusions are more or less the same as for the option reviewed above. The pay back periods are the same as the ones found in the above mentioned sensitivity analysis. It seems that also this option is insensitive to changes in the fuel price.

7 En

7.1 InThe asdescribof 10.0averagdifferenupstreathe usa Table 7

Propellenaked

Propellenozzle

In the afollowin

• 6• • 8• 8

7.2 RIn the elengtheenvironon the propellethe inckilomet

nvironm

nput datasessment

bed in chap0 km/h pere speed nt fuel coam and doage of a no

7.1 Total fue Ship’slength(m)

er: 69.98 76 82 88

er: 69.98 76 82 88

analysis thng data are69.98 m: 76 m: 82 m: 88 m:

Results environme

ening + repnmental asrelative sper. As the

creased catre are pre

mental fe

a and asof the env

pter 2. In tr journey aa differennsumptionwnstream

ozzle.

el consumRe

s h

Upstrea5.0 km

34453334

he tonne ke used:

10,69411,91313,17114,419

ental assesplacementssessment peed of 10. figure sho

apacity andsented and

easibilit

sumptiovironmentahe analysiand an av

nt speed un levels. T

per relativ

ption of Heelative speam

m/h Down

15.0

392 430 469 510 320 348 376 404

ilometres p

4,000 tkm;3,600 tkm;,200 tkm;

9,200 tkm.

ssment, a t of the profor the len0 km/h. In ows all emd volumes d this table

33/57

ty

ons al performa

s a distincverage speupstream The followve speed a

endrik in kged 10.0 kmnstream 0 km/h

131143156170107116125135

per lengthe

distinctionopeller. Thngthening these cas

missions wtransporte

e shows a

W

ance is carrction is maeed of 14.and down

wing table and per len

g for operam

Total Up9.

523573625680427464501539

ening step

n is made he figure bonly option

ses the veswill increaseed. In tabledecrease i

WP 6: New

ried out fode betwee4 km/h penstream isshows th

ngthening s

ation of 100Relative

pstream 4 km/h

700772845917558619683745

p per year

between lebelow showns in casessel still use in absolue 7.2 the in emission

w scales an

llowing theen an averer journey.s used, rehe fuel costep with a

0 km on Rhe speed 14Downstrea

19.4 km/h

33442333

are consid

engtheningws the res

e the vessees its curreute numbeemissions ns.

nd services

e approachage speed. For eachesulting in

onsumptionand without

hine .4 km

am h

Total

339 1,039374 1,146409 1,254444 1,361270 827300 919331 1,014361 1,105

dered. The

g only andsults of theel operatesent ‘nakeders, due to

per tonne

s

h d h n n t

96417945

e

d e s ’

o e

Figure propell

In the nozzle.current69.98+ Figure nozzle)

As the propelleand theof the vlower ttkm. Fothe micmade b

7.1 Annualer)

second st. The figurt environm indicates

7.2 Annual)

figure shoer in nozzerefore thevessel alsothan withoor CO2 thecrograms between th

l emissions

tep of the re shows th

mental perfothe installa

l emissions

ows the enle is instal

e absolute o increaseut the retre grams peper tonne

he lengthen

s of the He

analysis the resultsormance oation of the

s of the He

nvironmenlled. The tincrease is and ther

rofitting. Foer tonne kkilometres

ning option

34/57

endrik for a

the nakedof this ana

of the vesse propeller

endrik for a

tal performtwo figuresin emissiorefore the ollowing tailometre as are calcns with and

W

an average

propeller alysis. Forsel is presin nozzle.

an average

mance of ts only showns. Howevrelative va

able showsre presentulated. Als

d without a

WP 6: New

speed of 1

is replacer a good cosented (i.e

speed of 1

the vessel w the totaver the caralues (kg es the chanted, for all so in this t propeller

w scales an

10,0 km (na

ed for a pomparabili

e. 69.98). T

10,0 km (pr

will improl emissionrgo carryinemission/tknge in emi

the other table a disrearrangem

nd services

aked

propeller inty also theThe option

ropeller in

ove once as per year

ng capacitykm) can bessions peremissions

stinction isment.

s

n e n

a r y e r s s

Table 7

Propellenaked

Propellenozzle

Althougpositiveonce mthe emcargo itimes atranspo

7.3 SIn the sthe firsin the f Figure propell

The enlevels ipropelleperformlength

7.2 EmissioShlen

er: 69768288

er: 69768288

gh the eme environm

more cargomissions wis transporas the enviorted.

Sensitivitsensitivity at step onlyigure below

7.3 Annualer)

nvironmentincrease oer in noz

mance of thand the fir

ons in g/tkmhip’s ngth (m)

9.98 6 2 8 9.98 6 2 8

mission levmental impo is transpowill decreas

rted. Thereironmental

ty analysanalysis th

y the lengthw.

l emissions

al performonce the vzzle is cohe vessel rst lengthen

m and mg/tCO2 (g/tkm)

7.47.37.27.26.15.95.85.7

els are incpact as theorted. The se consideefore it wo performan

sis he relative hening of t

s of the He

ance of thessel is lensidered. improves oning steps

35/57

tkm for relaNOx (mg/tkm

4 107.923 106.272 104.792 104.141 88.109 86.008 84.057 82.49

creasing ine emission

installatioerably andould be wnce will inc

speed is inthe vessel

endrik for a

e vessel hengthened.

As the fionce the nthe absolu

W

ative speed

m) PM (mg/tk

25 4.972 4.898 4.841 4.702 4.006 3.953 3.896 3.7

n absolutes per tonnn of a propd can be ise to instcrease, eve

ncreased fis conside

an average

has decrea. In the seigure belonew propeute emissio

WP 6: New

d of 10.0 km

km) HC (mg/t

965 11888 11821 11790 11053 9956 9866 9795 9

e numbersne kilometrpeller in nofurther de

tall a propen when n

from 10.0 kered. The r

speed of 1

sed and thecond stepow shows,ller is instaon levels a

w scales an

m/h

km) CO (mg/

.966 44

.782 4

.619 4

.546 4

.768 3

.535 3

.319 34

.146 34

s, lengthenre are all dozzle is beecreased oeller in no

no addition

km/h to 14results are

14,4 km (na

he absolutep the instal, the envalled. For tare below t

nd services

/tkm) SO(mg

4.578 03.895 03.286 03.015 06.390 05.524 04.178 04.074 0

ning has adecreasingeneficial asonce moreozzle at alal cargo is

.4 km/h. Inpresented

aked

e emissionllation of a

vironmentathe currentthe current

s

2 g/tkm) 0.04690.04620.04560.04530.03830.03740.03650.0359

a g s e l

s

n d

n a l t t

emissiowill incr Figure nozzle)

The thiThe res Table 7

Propellenaked

Propellenozzle

When tto the eCO2 arthe veseffect okilometinstalla

on levels. rease, how

7.4 Annual)

ird step in sults are p

7.3 EmissioShipleng

er: 69.976 82 88

er: 69.976 82 88

the relativeemission lere almost tssel transpon the envitre will be

ation of a p

If the vesswever the le

l emissions

the sensitresented in

ons in g/tkmp’s gth (m)

CO(g

98

98

e speed inevels whentwo times

ports more ironmentalreduced eropeller in

sel is lengtevels are b

s of the He

tivity analyn the table

m and mg/tO2

g/tkm) (14.814.714.514.411.811.711.711.7

ncreases, tn sailing was high. Tcargo. Th

l performanven more.nozzle is b

36/57

thened by below the l

endrik for a

ysis is to ce below.

tkm for relaNOx (mg/tkm)

214.512212.459210.173208.424170.827170.318169.938169.254

the level owith a relativThe enviroe installatince of the Also whebeneficial f

W

18 metreslevels of th

an average

calculate th

ative speedPM (mg/tkm)

9.869.779.669.587.857.837.817.78

of emissionve speed onmental pon of a provessel andn sailing wfrom an en

WP 6: New

s the absohe lengthen

speed of 1

he emissio

d of 14.4 km

) HC (mg/tkm

8 23.73 23.58 23.37 23.18 18.95 18.87 18.86 18.7

n increasesof 10.0 kmerformancopeller in nd the emiswith a highenvironment

w scales an

olute emissning only o

14,4 km (pr

on per ton

m/h

m) CO (mg/tk

783 88555 87302 86108 86939 70883 70841 70765 69

s as well. m/h emissioce is increanozzle hassion levelser relative tal point of

nd services

sion levelsoptions.

ropeller in

kilometre

km) SO2

(mg8.603 07.755 06.810 06.088 00.559 00.349 00.192 09.909 0

Comparedon levels ofasing onces a positives per tonne

speed theview.

s

s

.

2 g/tkm) 0.09330.09240.09140.09060.07430.07410.07390.0736

d f e e e e

Part

37/57

t B: Rhe

W

einland

WP 6: Neww scales annd servicess

8 DeThe RLankewthe ves It seemConsormetresthe stahence provide Table 8 Length Beam DraughtDisplaceMain enSource: w Figure

Source: w

8.1 OAs the assumpassessConstaround t It is asupstreaaccounapprox

escriptiheinland (werft, locatssel has on

ms that thrtium when. For rese

arting poin57.50 met

es the origi

8.1 Main ch

t ement

ngine www.binnenva

8.1 Impres

www.binnenva

Operation actual opptions hav

sment. It isanta, Romatrip has a le

ssumed tham, will tant in theseximately 24

on of th(currently ted in Berlne cargo ho

e vessel in this leng

earch purpot of the letres. The inal measu

haracteristi

aart.eu.

ssion of the

aart.eu.

nal profilperating prve been ms assumedania. A onength of 2,

at the tripake 14 daye figures a4 days and

he shipnamed Nain-Splandaold, which

is already gthening toses the lengtheningvessel can

urements o

cs of the R

e Rheinland

le rofile of thmade whicd that the e way trip ,000 km.

downstreys. The d

as well. Thd on avera

39/57

apoleon) wau. The lenis covered

lengthenetook placeengthening

g assignmen be qualifof the vess

Rheinland ( 576.32.453De

d

he vessel ch are usevessel opehas a len

eam takes ays in poherefore itage 15 rou

W

was built ngth of thed with a ha

ed once; h. Current g is not coent is the fied as a el.

1959)

7.50 m 35 m 43 m

37 ton eutz 375 hp

is unknowed in the erates betgth of app

10 days ort and wat is assumund trips p

WP 6: New

in 1959 ae vessel waatch cover.

however itlength of

onsidered original le

CEMT II s

TAMD 163

wn to the economic

tween Budproximately

on averagaiting for cmed that a

er year ar

w scales an

at the Geras 57.50 m

t is unknothe vessein the ana

ength of tship. Follo

3 C

Consortiumc and envdapest, Huy 1,000 km

e, while thcargo are round trip

re performe

nd services

rman yardmetres and

own to theel is 63.44alyses andhe vesselwing table

m, severaironmenta

ungary andm and so a

he journeytaken intop will takeed. As the

s

d d

e 4 d ,

e

l l

d a

y o e e


40/57

vessel is sailing on long distances it is assumed that the vessel will wait for cargo instead of sailing empty. Therefore it is assumed that the vessel will carry cargo on all its 30 single trips. However the vessel will not be fully loaded.

9 CoThis chsevera6.2 ascarryingonce th

9.1 SIn task analysi(63.44 lengthe The folFor eac Table 9 Max draTotal caAdditionRelativeSource: M For eacoverall Table 9 LengtheCosts pCosts pTotal coSource: M

9.2 MManoethe mamanoe

1. 2. S3. 4.

The anthe origmetres

onsiderhapter presl lengtheni

ssessed thg out sevehe vessel is

Ship struc6.1 the le

s is the ormetres). T

ening steps

llowing tabch new opt

9.1 Max. dra

aught argo in holdnal cargo ine change caMove-it WP 6,

ch of the ocosts per

9.2 Summa

ening step Δper meter ofper meter ofost per m Move-it WP 6,

Manoeuvruvrability aain focus uvrability fCombinedStandard zEvasive mCrash stop

nalysis wasginal length and 69.50

red shipsents the ing steps whe manoeeral manoes lengthen

cture engtheningriginal lengThe lengths is 6.0 me

ble shows tion also th

aught and

s holds

argo holds task 6.1 final

options a dlengthenin

ry of costs

ΔL f the new sef the new se

task 6.1 final

rability and the imof task 6

four differe turning cirzigzag man

manoeuvresp manoeuv

s carried oh of 57.50 0 metres. A

p modifioutcomes were consuvrability euvrability ed taking i

g option of gth of the vhening steetres and in

the maximhe addition

additional (m) (t) (t) (%)

report.

detailed cong step and

s per length

ection (steeection (dry d

report.

mpact of le6.2. To esent tests arrcle / pull-onoeuvres;s; and vres.

out for thremetres. ThAll tests ar

41/57

icationsof tasks 6

sidered andof the vetests. Tas

into accou

the Rheinvessel (57

eps proposn total 2 le

mum draft nal cargo c

cargo for dLoa 57

st estimated the costs

hening met

l) dock per we

engtheningstablish the conducteout manoe

e differenthe tests were carried o

W

s 6.1 to 6.3 d for each essel undesk 6.3 assent different

nland was .50 metres

sed complyngthening

and the toapacity is

different le7.50m2.429537,8

--

e is made.s per metre

ter for MV ’ (m)(€/m

eek) (€/m(€/m

of the vehe effect oed: uvres;

t lengths oere also doout for diff

WP 6: New

for the Rhof the ste

er differenessed the t water dep

analysed. s) instead y with cursteps were

otal cargo presented

engtheningLoa 63.50

2.461

71

The followe.

’RheinlandLoa 63

) ) )

ssel on thof lengthe

f the vesseone for a sferent wate

w scales an

heinland. Ieps considnt circums

power reqpths and c

Starting pof the curr

rrent BV rue consider

capacity p.

steps 0 m L429 5.6

77.8 4.5

wing table

d’ 3.50 m L

6.0 5.000

800 5.800

he manoeuening on a

el. The firsship’s lengter levels, to

nd services

n task 6.1ered tasks

stances byquirementsurrents.

point of therent lengthules. Eachred.

per option

oa 69.50 m2.420

694156.2

29.0

shows the

oa 69.50 m12.0

5.000400

5.400

uvrability isa vessel’s

st length isth of 63.50o establish

s

1 s y s

e h h

.

m0420

e

m0000

s s

s 0 h


42/57

the effects in deep water as well as shallow water. The depths considered were 3.5 m, 5 m, and 20 m. Also different speed levels were considered and each test was carried out for a speed of 10 km/h and 13 km/h. The lengthening of the vessel has no significant impact on the turning ability and directional stability of the vessel (the combined turning circle and pull-out manoeuvres). In shallow water the turning ability of the vessel is impaired, but to improve the turning ability the vessel could decrease it approach speed. No further improvements are needed. The same conclusions are drawn for the yaw checking ability and the initial turning ability (zigzag manoeuvres). Also the lengthening of Rheinland has no influence on the evasive manoeuvring ability (evasive manoeuvres) and the stopping ability (crash stop manoeuvres) of the vessel and no action is needed.

9.3 Powering In task 6.3 the influence of lengthening the vessel on the powering arrangement is analysed. The Rheinland is a single-propelled vessel, with a Deutz 375 hp TAMD 163 C engine. The vessel also has one propeller with a propeller diameter of 1.0 metres. The propeller has no nozzle. It is estimated that the maximum speed of the vessel is 17.8 km/h, however the vessel hardly ever sails at maximum speed. In the analysis not only the effect of the lengthening on the required power is analysed, but also the water depth is considered. The lengthening itself does not significantly influence the power needed to achieve a certain speed. Therefore the same power train (engine, gearbox and propeller) was considered for all lengthening steps. It should be noted that the power train is renewed in the analysis, but the technical specifications remain more or less the same. Speed reductions of 1 to 2 km/h as result of the lengthening might occur in case the water depth changes. In shallow water (from deep to h= 5 m and then from 5 m to 3.5 m) the speed reduction of Rheinland is around 2 km/h. In very shallow water the maximum speed is even further reduced. The maximum allowed speed 10 km/h for h=3.5 m. The installation of a propeller with nozzle will improve the propulsive efficiency compared to the usage of a naked propeller. The expected improvement is 10% which increases the max. speed up to 1 km/h.

10 Ec

10.1 CLengthcompalengthethe samabsolutThe foldifferen Table 1year) Ship’s (m) 57 63 69 Besidethe lencapacitcargo c These increascompaoperatesail witthe othrevenu

10.2 InFor Rlengthetask 6.changeTotal cengine tasks 6propelleare € 5

6 The c

addit

conomic

Commercening of thny. First a

ening it is eme operatte fuel conlowing tab

nt relative s

0.1 Total fu

length

s an increngthening. ty increasecarrying ca

options mse the carny to tranes on the Dh a lower d

her hand te.

nput dataheinland ening only 3 it was a

ed as well,osts for thconsist of

6.3 it waser in nozz

57,500.6

costs for a newional to the inv

c feasib

cial / ecohe vessel wnd foremoexpected ttional levensumption ble providesspeeds an

uel consum

RelatNaked

propell414448

ase in fueIn case

es with 77.apacity incr

might influego capacit

nsport the Danube, a draught, ththe compa

a and astwo lengtare about

advised th, to ensuree new engf both the s also advle. It is as

w propeller arevestment cost

bility

onomic imwill have sst the fuel that the ve

el. Accordinwill increas an overvd retrofit o

mption of R

ive speed d ler

P

1,943 4,651 8,125

el consumpthe vesse8 tons andreases with

ence the loty of the vsame amriver with

he companany can tra

sumptiothening stt € 34,800at for eace enough gine add uselling pric

vised to chssumed tha

e only considets mentioned i

43/57

mpacts some impa

consumptessel will cng to the

ase, even iview of the ptions.

Rheinland i

10.8 km/hPropeller in

nozzle 36,39,441,

ption the veel is lengthd in case thh 156.2 ton

ogistical opvessel. On

mount of cfluctuating

ny is able tansport m

ons teps are for Loa 6

ch lengthenpowering p to € 232ce of an enhange theat the add

ered in the optin table 10.2.

W

acts on thetion of the

consume mfindings in

in case a fuel consu

in litre per

n Nake

397481937

essel is abhened by he vessel ins.

peration ofn the one cargo with g water levo operate

more cargo

considere63.5 m, anning step to operate

2.800. The ngine as w propeller itional inve

tion where the

WP 6: New

business vessel wil

more fuel ifn task 6.3propeller i

umption of

year on Da

Relative sed propelle

95,12108,11120,69

ble to carry6 metres

is lengthen

f the comphand thisa lower d

vels, and if longer tha than befo

d. The ind € 64,800the main

e the vessinvestmen

well as the from a n

estments f

e propeller is r

w scales an

case of thl change. f it wants t3 it is likeln nozzle isthe Rhein

anube (litre

speed 14.8 er Pro

n28 19 91

y more ca the carg

ned by 12

pany. Mains option endraught. Tthe vesse

an it is nowore and in

nvestment 0 for Loa engine ne

sel in the snts costs foinstallatio

naked propfor the new

replaced and t

nd services

he shippingDue to theo maintainly that thes installedland under

es per

km/h peller in

nozzle 81,70992,184

101,403

rgo due too carryingmetres the

n aim is tonables theThe vesseel is able towadays. Onncrease its

costs of69.5 m. In

eeds to besame wayor the newn costs. Inpeller to aw propeller

the costs are

s

g e n e . r

943

o g e

o e l

o n s

f n e .

w n a r


44/57

For both options it is considered that the time at yard is four weeks. The time at yard will not change due to lengthening as the lengthened part is pre-produced at the yard and once the vessel is in dry dock the total length of the new part is irrelevant for the time the vessel needs to be at the yard. It is assumed that the additional insurance costs are the same for all lengthening steps and will increase the initial insurance costs by 10%. Table 10.2 Overview of input data Loa 63.5 m Loa 69.5 m Investment costs € 267,600 € 297,600 Time at yard 4 weeks 4 weeks Maintenance costs € 0 € 0 Additional ship capacity (ton) 78 156 Δ insurance costs + 10% +10%

10.2.1 Specific assumptions 1. It is assumed that the vessel transports bulk, e.g. agricultural products. For each

of these commodities a transport price per ton of € 17 is considered7.

2. In case of lengthening the fuel consumption will rise. As no information is available for the fuel consumption of the main and auxiliary engine it is assumed that the fuel consumption used only compromises the main engine. The consumption of the auxiliary engines will not change as a result of the lengthening. Therefore, to calculate the fuel increase only the fuel consumption of the main engine is considered.

3. To lengthen the vessel, the vessel needs to go in dry-dock for 4 weeks. It is

assumed that the vessel sails between Budapest and Constanta. If the vessel needs to go in dry dock the vessel will miss one round.

4. Inland vessels are often not fully loaded. The Rheinland is compared other

vessels sailing on the Danube and it is assumed that the load factor of the vessel is 75%. This is more or less equal to the load factors of similar vessels. It is assumed, that also when the vessel is lengthened, the vessel will not be fully loaded. According the task 6.1 the additional cargo capacity for Loa 63.5 m is 78 tons and for Loa 69.5 m is 156 tons. For the additional capacity it is assumed that 75% will be used, equalling 59 respectively 118 tons (assuming there is sufficient demand).

10.3 Results of economic assessment The economic assessment is carried out for two different relative speeds. The first table presents the results when a relative speed of 10.8 km/h is used. The upstream speed equals 6.8 km/h and the downstream speed 14.8 km/h. A distinction is made between

7 Based on expert judgement.


45/57

the option of only lengthening the vessel with 6 or 12 metres and the option of also changing the propeller from a naked propeller to a propeller in nozzle. Table 10.3 Outcome of economic assessment for relative speed of 10.8 km/h Loa 63.5 m Loa 69.5 m Naked


Naked propeller

Propeller in nozzle

NPV (x 1000) € 70 € 71 € 298 € 385 IRR 9% 8% 20% 18% Payback time 15 years 16 years 6 years 7 years As the table shows especially the lengthening of the vessel with 12 metres is a feasible option. It should be noted that according to ship owners interviewed even a payback period of 6 or 7 years is too long, however if the economic situation improves it might become an attractive option. To lengthen the vessel by only six metres is not economically feasible as the payback period is 15 respectively 16 years. The calculations show that the options with a naked propeller are earned back earlier then the options with a propeller in nozzle. These options have higher investment costs, as the nozzle needs to be installed, and the maintenance and insurance costs are higher as well. The amount of additional cargo does not compensate for this increase in costs and therefore it takes longer to earn back the initial investment. The same analysis was also carried for a relative speed of 14.8 km/h. The upstream speed considered is 10.8 km/h and the downstream speed is 18.8 km/h. Also for this analysis both the lengthening only option and the option lengthening + propeller in nozzle are considered. Table 10.4 Outcome of economic assessment for relative speed of 14.8 km/h

Loa 63.5 m Loa 69.5 m Naked


Naked propeller

Propeller in nozzle

NPV (x 1000) € -27 € 75 € 190 € 325 IRR 4% 9% 13% 16% Payback time > 26 years 16 years 10 years 8 years When the vessel sails with a relative speed of 14.8 km/h some options are feasible. Lengthening the vessel with 12 metres and installation of a propeller in nozzle is the most feasible option. The options where the vessel is lengthened with only 6 metres the payback period is not feasible. This is due to the increased fuel consumption. Sailing at a higher speed increases the fuel consumption of the vessel considerably and the additional cargo capacity does not compensate for the fuel increase. However the installation of a propeller in nozzle is beneficial as the payback period has decreased to 16 years.

10.4 Sensitivity analysis The following tables show the outcome of the sensitivity analyses carried out for the lengthening options. All analyses are carried out for a relative speed of 10.8 km/h which is probably the speed most often used. The first analysis carried out focuses on


46/57

lengthened the vessel with 6 metres and the current propeller arrangement. This option is chosen as it is the option with a longer payback period than desired by the ship owner, however with the potential to become an attractive option. Changes in fuel price, investment costs or transport prices might make this option a less desirable one. Each of these effects is considered separately and a worst case and best case scenario are presented. Table 10.5 Outcome of sensitivity analysis Loa 63.5 m and naked propeller (relative speed 10.8 km/h) Investment costs Fuel price Transport price Base

case -20% +20% -10% +10% -25% +25%

NPV (x 1000)

€ 70 € 116 € 25 € 73 € 69 € -17 € 158

IRR 9% 12% 6% 9% 9% 5% 12%Payback time

15 years 11 years 21 years 15 years 15 years >26 years 11 years

As the analysis shows this lengthening option is most sensitive to changes in the investment costs and in changes in transport prices. In case the investment costs decrease or the transport prices increases the payback period is shortened from 15 to 11 years. However if the investment costs increase or the transport prices decrease the payback period becomes longer. In case the transport prices drop the ship owner is no longer able to earn back his initial investment. In the second sensitivity analysis the lengthening option of 6 metres and installation of a propeller on nozzle is considered. Also in this analysis a change in investment costs, fuel prices and transport prices were taken into account. Table 10.6 Outcome of sensitivity analysis Loa 63.5 m and propeller in nozzle (relative speed 10.8 km/h)

Investment costs Fuel price Transport price Base

case -20% +20% -10% +10% -25% +25%

NPV (x 1000)

€ 71 € 126 € 15 € 68 € 73 € -16 € 158

IRR 8% 11% 6% 8% 8% 5% 11%Payback time

16 years 12 years 22 years 16 years 16 years >26 years 12 years

In this sensitivity analysis the conclusions are the same as for the previous analysis. It can be concluded that the effect of installation of a propeller in nozzle is not much influenced by changes in fuel prices at the shortest lengthening step.

11 En

11.1 InThe asdescribof 10.8averagdifferendownsta nozzconsum Table 1

Propellenaked

Propellenozzle

In the adata ar

• 5• 6• 6

11.2 RIn the lengtheenvironon the ‘naked’

nvironm

nput datasessment

bed in chap8 km/h pere speed ant fuel contream per zle. It shomption.

1.1 Total fu

Ship’slength(m)

er: 57 63 69

er: 57 63 69

analysis thre used: 57 m: 63 m: 69 m:

Results environme

ening + repnmental as

relative s’ propeller.

mental fe

a and asof the env

pter 2. In tr journey aa differentnsumption.average s

ould be no

uel consumRe

s h

Upstrea6.8 km/

2,02,12,21,71,82,0

e tonne kil

16,13418,46820,820

ental assesplacementssessment speed of 1. As the fig

easibilit

sumptiovironmentahe analysiand an avt speed up Followingpeed and oted that t

mption of Relative speam h

Down14.8 k

000 147 294 735 882 000

lometres p

4,000 tkm;8,000 tkm;0,000 tkm.

ssment a t of the profor only th

10.8 km/h ure shows

47/57

ty

ons al performa

s a distincverage spepstream a

g table shoper lengththe table

Rheinland ied 10.8 km

nstream km/h

919960

1,055797865919

per lengthe

distinction opeller. Thhe lengtheand in th

s all emissi

W

ance is carrction is maeed of 14.and downsows the fuening steppresents

in kg for opm

Total Up10.

2,9193,1073,3492,5322,7472,919

ening steps

is made he figure bning optionis case thons will inc

WP 6: New

ried out fode betwee8 km/h pe

stream is uel consump with and the absolu

peration ofRelative

pstream .8 km/h

D1

4,2044,7785,3333,6114,0744,481

s are consi

between lebelow showns in casehe vessel crease.

w scales an

llowing theen an averer journey.used, resu

mption upswithout theute increa

f 1000 km oe speed 14Downstrea18.8 km/h

2,42,73,02,02,32,5

idered. The

engtheningws the res the vessestill uses

nd services

e approachage speed. For eachulting in atream ande usage of

ase in fue

on Danube.8 km m Total

415 6,619745 7,523064 8,397074 5,685340 6,414574 7,055

e following

g only andsults of theel operatesits current

s

h d h a d f l

937545

g

d e s t

Figure propell

In Figuconsidebetweenozzle in casebelow cto the cvessel Figure in nozz

It shouthe absalso incretrofitt

11.1 Annuaer)

ure 11.2 tered. Alsoen sailing w

to the proe the vesscurrent levcurrent levis lengthen

11.2 Annuazle)

ld be notesolute incrcreases anting. Follow

al emission

the lengtho the currwith and wopeller withel is lengt

vel. If the vevels, howened but no

al emission

d that the rease in emnd the relawing table

ns of the R

hening optrent situatwithout a phout lengthhened to 6essel is len

ever they wo rearrange

ns of the R

figures onmissions. Hative value

show the

48/57

Rheinland f

tions incluion is add

propeller inhening the 63 m and ngthened twill be loweement in th

Rheinland f

nly show thHowever t

es (kg emischange in

W

or an avera

ding a neded to th

n nozzle. Tvessel wia nozzle i

to 69 m theer than the

he propelle

or an avera

he total emhe cargo cssion/tkm) n emission

WP 6: New

age speed

ew propelle figure,

The figure ll decreaseis added te emissione emission

er system is

age speed

missions pecarrying cacan be low

ns per tkm

w scales an

of 10,8 km

er arrangethis for cshows thae all emisshe emissio

ns level willns levels ins made.

of 10,8 km

er year andapacity of wer than w. Also in th

nd services

m (naked

ement arecomparisonat adding asions. Alsoons will bel be similarn case the

m (propeller

d thereforethe vesse

without thehis table a

s

e n a o e r e

r

e l

e a

distinctrearran Table 1

Propellenaked

Propellenozzle

In all caThe em

11.3 SIn the scarriedThe firlengtheemissio Figure propell

Figure Also in a goodincreasmaximuincreas

tion is mangement.

1.2 EmissiShilen

er: 57 63 69

er: 57 63 69

ases the emissions ar

Sensitivitsensitivity out as warst figure ened and on levels w

11.3 Annuaer)

11.4 showthis figure

d comparisses once tum 63 m. se, howeve

ade betwe

ions in g/tkip’s

ngth (m)

emissions lre even fur

ty analysanalysis th

as for the eshows ththe same

will increase

al emission

ws the lene the curreson. As thethe propeIn case th

er the incre

een the le

km and mgCO2 (g/tkm)

8.68.07.77.57.16.7

evels in g/rther reduc

sis he higher renvironmee outcom

e propellere once the

ns of the R

ngthened oent situatione figure shller in noze vessel is

ease is sm

49/57

engthening

g/tkm for reNOx (mg/tkm)

124.818116.083110.979108.311102.641

96.710

/tkm or mgced once a

relative spental assese for the r arrangeme vessel is

Rheinland f

options incn (length o

hows the ezzle is inss lengthenealler than l

W

g options

elative speePM (mg/tkm

8 5.743 5.349 5.101 4.981 4.720 4.44

g/tkm reducpropeller

eed is conssment for

situation ment is uslengthened

or an avera

cluding theof 57m andenvironmenstalled anded to 69 mlengthenin

WP 6: New

with and

ed of 10.8 k

m) HC (mg/tk

42 13.40 12.05 12.82 12.21 11.49 10.

ce as the vin nozzle is

nsidered. Ta relative in which

sed. As thd.

age speed

e new prod naked prntal perford the vessm the envirg without a

w scales an

without a

km/h

km) CO (mg/t

838 51870 47304 45008 44380 42722 39

vessel is les installed.

The same speed of the vess

he figure s

of 14,4 km

opeller arrropeller) is mance of sel is lengronmental a propeller

nd services

a propeller

tkm) SO2

(mg1.555 07.947 05.839 04.737 02.395 09.945 0

engthened.

analysis is14.4 km/h

sel is onlyshows the

m (naked

angementshown forthe vesse

gthened toimpact wil

r in nozzle.

s

r

2 g/tkm) 0.05430.05050.04830.04710.04460.0420

.

s . y e

. r l

o l

Figure in nozz

Also focalcula Table 1

Propellenaked

Propellenozzle

At this all casepropellethe instthat sa

11.4 Annuazle)

or sailing ated. Follow

1.3 EmissiShlen

er: 57 63 69

er: 57 63 69

higher spees the emier in nozztallation ofiling on a h

al emission

on this hiwing table

ions in g/tkip’s

ngth (m)

eed the emissions per

zle is instaf a nozzle higher spee

ns of the R

igher relatshows the

km and mgCO2

(g/tkm)19.519.419.216.816.516.1

missions ter g/tkm or lled the peis beneficied increas

50/57

Rheinland f

tive speed outcomes

g/tkm for reNOx

(mg/tkm283.087281.084278.323243.154239.658233.843

end to redumg/tkm de

erformanceal for the e

ses the env

W

or an avera

d the perfos of this an

elative speex)

P(mg/tkm

7 13.024 12.933 12.804 11.188 11.023 10.75

uce less thaecrease one of the veenvironmevironmenta

WP 6: New

age speed

ormance palysis.

ed of 14.8 kPMm) (mg/tk22 31.30 31.03 30.85 26.24 26.57 25.

an sailing nce the veessel furthnt. Overall

al impact of

w scales an

of 14,8 km

per ton ki

km/h HC

km) (mg/386 116164 116857 114958 100571 98926 96

on a lowerssel length

her increasl it can be f shipping.

nd services

m (propeller

lometre is

CO/tkm) (m6.927 06.100 04.959 00.433 08.989 06.587 0

r speed. Inhened. If ases and soconcluded

s

r

s

SO2

g/tkm)0.12310.12220.12100.10570.10420.1017

n a o d

12 Co

12.1 T•

e

a•

v• A

•

• a

• Tw

12.2 M• •

va

• Aa

• tc

• ete

12.3 OLengthvesselsof this line witalreadyfeasiblenot be

onclusio

The main Lengtheninevaluated retrofit opadjustmenLengtheninvessel. SpAlthough tis advised Lengtheninpropeller inLengtheninas the admain beneThe lengthwell as its performanperforman

Main concLengtheninLengtheninvessel. In approach sAlthough tadvised toin nozzle; Lengtheninthe vesselconditions It should aenough incthe Rhine earn back.

Overall coening of ss in the fleeretrofit optth the resy need to he. If a vess

e an optio

ons

conclusng of the vlengths w

ption, becnts becomeng will not

peed reduche currentto change

ng of this n nozzle, ang becomeditional ca

efit for the shening of t

cargo carce of the ce can be

clusionsng of the vng of the

some casspeed; the curren

o change th

ng of the l with onlythe invest

also be nocome to eaare consi

.

onclusiosmaller inlet. It appeaion, while

sults of thehave a critsel is too s

on to mak

sions forvessel is t

within the cause at e technicalt have a c

ctions will st power trae the engin

vessel isand under des more eargo carryiship ownerhe vessel rrying capavessel in improved

s for Rhevessel is tevessel wilses the m

t power trhe current

vessel is y 6 metrestment will noted that farn back thidered for

ons land vessears that vesmaller she lengthenical mass small, as iske the ves

51/57

r Hendrikechnically boundarieslarger le

ly very comconsiderabsolve manoin is suitabe and prop

s economidifferent re

economicaing capacir; will increa

acity and toa positivefurther.

einland:chnically fel have no

manoeuvra

rain is suffengine fo

often econs will have not be earnfreight ratehe investmthe Rhein

els is ecoessels that hips do notning optionto ensure s the casessel more

W

k: possible,

s of the Cengtheningmplicated, ble effect oeuvrabilityble for all lepeller to encally feas

elative spelly feasibleity (revenu

se the fueogether th

e way. In c

easible; influence

bility can

ficient to pr a newer

nomicallylong payb

ned back aes paid onment. Evennland, the

onomically fall within . Based onns analysethat the le for the Rh competiti

WP 6: New

although nCEMT clasg options hence expon the may issues; engtheningnsure betteible, both eds; e for largeue genera

l consumpis will affecase a no

on the mabe improv

perform in one and t

feasible, hback perioat all. n the Danu when the investmen

feasible mthe CEMT

n the analyed in WP ngthening heinland, leive. The

w scales an

not all conss are suit

the hull pensive tooanoeuvrab

g steps coner efficienc

with and

er lengthenting capac

ption of thect the envzzle is ins

anoeuvrabved by red

the samehe install a

however leod and und

ube do nofreight rat

nts will be

mainly for T III class cysis done a

7.2, inlanwill be eco

engtheninginvestmen

nd services

nsidered ortable as a

structureo; bility of the

nsidered, ity; without a

ning stepscity) is the

e vessel asironmenta

stalled, the

bility of theducing the

e way, it isa propeller

engtheningder certain

t generatetes paid on

difficult to

mid-sizedcan benefitand also innd vesselsonomicallyg will oftent costs of

s

r a e

e

t

a

, e

s l

e

e e

s r

g n

e n o

d t n s y n f


52/57

lengthening cannot be compensated. It can also be concluded that a small vessel like Rhineland is wrongly utilized on large/long river as is the Danube. From an environmental perspective it is desirable to install a propeller in nozzle instead of a naked propeller. The propeller in nozzle is able to reduce the fuel consumption and therefore the amount of all emissions. To have more benefit from the propeller in nozzle the vessel should also reduce its speed. In these cases the implementation of the nozzle works best.

13 Bi

13.1 B•

•

• S2

• S2

•

2•

•

•

T•

o•

2•

V

• S• V

s

13.2 W• • • •

bliogra

Books anEcofys, EPerceel 3 Ecofys, 31Ecorys, CEindrappoMoveIT!, MSystem In2013-10-2MoVe-IT, System In2013; MoveIT!, MNew scale2013; MoveIT!, MNew scaleMoveIT!, MNew scaleMoVe IT!, Literature Transport MoVe IT!, of the art, NEA, PlanPerspectiv2011; PLANCO, VerkehrstrConsultingSeitz M., MVan Beelesector, 201

Websiteshttp://wwwhttp://wwwhttp://wwwhttp://www

aphy and

nd articlecorys, Ma(cluster 4 juli 2013; E Delft, Ert perceel

Modernisatntegration 2; Modernisantegration

Modernisates and ser

Modernisates and servModernisates and serv

Modernisaon retrofitSystems; Modernisa

Deliverablenco, via donves of IWT

VerkerägerStraßg GmbH anManual on en, Structu11.

w.binnenvaw.binnenvaw.cbrb.nl/; w.interrijn.n

d refere

es arin, TU D), Deelrap

ICB, TU D3 (cluster 4tion of Ves& Assessm

ation of Ve& Assess

tion of Vesrvices, D 6

tion of Vesvices, D 6.2tion of Vesvices, D 6.3ation of Vetting, DST

ation of Vee 1.1, 14 Dnau, CE D

T in the Eur

ehrswirtschße, Schiennd BundesDanube N

uring and M

art.nl; art.eu;

l/.

53/57

ences

Delft, EICBport 2: Inv

Delft, Marin4), juli 201ssels for Inment, D 7

ssels for Isment, D

ssels for In6.1: Ship s

ssels for In2: Manoeussels for In3: Powerin

essels for In - Develo

essels for December elft and Mropean Un

aftlicher ne und WanstaltfürG

Navigation, Modelling d

W

B and CEventarisatie

n and Eco3; nland wate.1: System

nland wate7.3: Envir

nland watestructure,

nland wateuvrability, Mnland wateng, Universnland watepment Ce

Inland wat2012; DS Transm

nion, Final

und WasserstraßGewässerkvia donau

decision m

WP 6: New

E Delft, Se en categ

ofys, IDVV

erway freigm Integrati

erway freigronmental

erway freigCMT and

erway freigMarin, 2013erway freigsity of Belgerway freigntre for S

terway fre

modal, Medreport, Zoe

ökologiscße, Schlukunde, Nov, Vienna, J

making in t

w scales an

Schone Bigoriseringte

– Schone

ght Transpon, TU De

ght Transpimpact, v

ght TranspUniversity

ght Transp3; ght Transpgrade, 2013ght Transpohip Techn

ight Trans

dium and Letermeer,

cherVergleissbericht,

vember 20January 20the inland

nd services

nnenvaartechnieken,

e schepen

port, WP 7elft (DUT)

port, WP 7via Donau,

port, WP 6y of Galati

port, WP 6

port, WP 63; ort, WP 1 -

nology and

port, State

Long TermDecember

ich derPLANCO

07; 007; navigation

s

, ,

,

: ,

: ,

: ,

:

:

- d

e

m r

r O

n

14 Ind

14.1 InFigure Figure (nakedFigure (propelFigure (nakedFigure (propelFigure Figure (nakedFigure (propelFigure (nakedFigure (propel

14.2 InTable 2Table 3Table 3Table 4Table 5Table 5Table 6Table 6Table 6Table 6Table 6Table 6speed Table 610.0 kmTable 7Table 7Table 7Table 8Table 9Table 9Table 1year) ..Table 1Table 1

dexes

ndex of f4.1 Impres7.1 Annu propeller)7.2 Annuler in nozz7.3 Annu propeller)7.4 Annuler in nozz8.1 Impres11.1 Annu propeller)11.2 Annuler in nozz11.3 Annu propeller)11.4 Annuler in nozz

ndex of t2.1 Averag3.1 Presen3.2 Emissio4.1 Main ch5.1 Max. dr5.2 Summa6.1 Total fu6.2 Fuel co6.3 Overvie6.4 Outcom6.5 Outcom6.6 Outco10.0 km/h)6.7 Outcomm/h) ..........7.1 Total fu7.2 Emissio7.3 Emissio8.1 Main ch9.1 Max. dr9.2 Summa10.1 Total ................10.2 Overv10.3 Outco

figures ssion of theal emissio al emissio

zle)al emissio al emissio

zle)ssion of theual emissio ual emissiozle)ual emissio ual emissiozle)

tables ge age of Wntation of oon factors haracteristraught andary of costsuel consumonsumptionew of data me of econme of econme of sen) ...............me of sens................

uel consumons in g/tkons in g/tkharacteristraught andary of costsfuel cons

................view of inpuome of eco

e Hendrikons of the

ons of the

ons of the

ons of the

e Rheinlanons of the

ons of the

ons of the

ons of the

Western Euutcomes fefor inland w

tics of the Hd additionas per lengt

mption of Hn of Hendrinput .......omic asseomic asse

nsitivity an................

sitivity anal................

mption of Hm and mg/m and mg/tics of the Rd additionas per lengtumption of................ut data .....

onomic ass

55/57

Hendrik i

Hendrik i

Hendrik i

Hendrik i

ndRheinland

Rheinland

Rheinland

Rheinland

uropean veeasibility awaterway Hendrik (1

al cargo forthening ste

Hendrik in liik in litre p................

essment foressment foralysis Loa................lysis Loa 7................

Hendrik in k/tkm for rel/tkm for relRheinland

al cargo forthening mef Rheinlan................................

sessment fo

W

n kg for a

n kg for a

n kg for a

n kg for a

d in kg for

d in kg for

d in kg for

d in kg for

essels .......assessmenvessel .....975) ........r different leep for MV ’itre per yeaer ton tran................r relative sr relative s

a 76 m an................

76 m and n................

kg for operlative speelative spee(1959) .....

r different leeter for MVnd in litre p................................or relative

WP 6: New

an average

an average

an average

an average

an averag

an averag

an averag

an averag

................t ..............................................engtheningHendrik’ ..ar on Rhinsported ...................

speed of 10speed of 14nd propelle................naked prop................

ration of 10ed of 10.0 ked of 14.4 k................engthening

V ’Rheinlanper year o................................speed of 1

w scales an

e speed o

e speed o

e speed o

e speed o

ge speed o

ge speed o

ge speed o

ge speed o

................

................

................

................g steps ....................e .............................................0.0 km/h ...4.4 km/h ...er in nozzl................peller (rela................

00 km on Rkm/h ........km/h ........................g steps ....nd’ ............n Danube................................10.8 km/h .

nd services

21of 10,0 km

34of 10,0 km

34of 14,4 km

35of 14,4 km

3639

of 10,8 km48

of 10,8 km48

of 14,4 km49

of 14,8 km50

.............. 9

............ 13

............ 16

............ 21

............ 23

............ 24

............ 27

............ 27

............ 28

............ 29

............ 30le (relative............ 30

ative speed............ 31

Rhine .... 33............ 35............ 36............ 39............ 41............ 41 (litres per............ 43............ 44............ 45

s

m 4 m 4 m 5 m 6 9 m 8 m 8 m 9 m 0

9 3 6

3 4 7 7 8 9 0 e 0 d

3 5 6 9

r 3 4 5


56/57

Table 10.4 Outcome of economic assessment for relative speed of 14.8 km/h ............. 45 Table 11.1 Total fuel consumption of Rheinland in kg for operation of 1000 km on Danube .......................................................................................................................... 47 Table 11.2 Emissions in g/tkm and mg/tkm for relative speed of 10.8 km/h .................. 49 Table 11.3 Emissions in g/tkm and mg/tkm for relative speed of 14.8 km/h .................. 50

14.3 List of abbreviations BV Bureau Veritas; CBRB Centraal Bureau voor de Rijn- en Binnenvaart CCR Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine; CO Carbon monoxide; CO2 Carbon dioxide; GL Germanischer Lloyd; HC Hydrocarbon; H&M Hull and machinery; IRR Internal rate of return; IW Inland waterway; IWT Inland waterway transport; kW Kilo watt; NOx Nitrogen oxide; NPV Net present value; P&I Protection and indemnity; PM Particular matter; SO2 Sulphur dioxide; TEU Twenty feet equivalent unit; WP Work Package.

WP 6: New s cales and ices · economically feasible. It seems that vessels that fall within the...

Documents

Transcript of WP 6: New s cales and ices · economically feasible. It seems that vessels that fall within the...