Ocean shipping lines cut speed to save fuel costs

[n2doc]

By Ronald D. White, Los Angeles Times
July 31, 2010

On the high seas, full speed ahead is being replaced by slow and steady.

Eager to cut fuel costs, ocean shipping lines have ordered their sea captains to throttle back the engines for what is quaintly known in the industry as "slow steaming." In some cases, freighters are taking as many as 15 days to make a Pacific crossing that used to take 11 days.

Sailors grumble that it's making long voyages even more tedious. Some ships are crawling at just 12 to 14 knots, or about 14 to 16 mph. Many cargo ships are capable of moving at nearly twice that speed.

"After two weeks, it's just so monotonous," said Daniel Ticer, a 58-year-old boatswain who was hanging out between sailings at the International Seafarers Center in Long Beach. "They try to add entertainment onboard the ship, more movies, but it's tough," said Ticer, who lives near Fresno when he isn't at sea.

more

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-slow-sailing-20100731,0,3362974.story

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. watch for sails to make a comeback, too

free energy.

[Turbineguy]

2. The cost crossover point

between fixed costs and fuel cost is around $45 per barrel. A significant cost of shipping used to be the interest rate on the cargo while in transit. In addition, increased speed can be a competitive advantage between carriers. But interest rates are low.

As fuel consumption varies with the cube of the speed, slowing down saves money, although engines operate below maximum efficiency.

Slowing down a 24-knot ship burning 140 tons per day to 18 knots drops consumption to about 63 tons per day. A total savings of 380 tons for a Pacific crossing. This represents a savings of over $160,000 on a crossing. Given cargo volumes, the ship can be full instead of 2/3rds or less.

Increased cargo volumes will drive speeds up.

As an added point: A new CSX rail commercial claims they move a ton of cargo 400 miles on a gallon of fuel. Our 18 knot vessel moves that ton of cargo 2000 miles on a gallon of fuel.

[pnorman]

3. Thanks for that info, TG!

:hi: :hi:

[gulfcoastliberal]

4. I was watching "Mighty Ships" on Discovery ch. & they mentioned the world fleet releases more co2

than all the airplanes and cars in the world combined. That bunker fuel is some nasty stuff.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. I suspect you may have 2 (or more) gases mixed up

Bunker fuel is 'nasty stuff' in terms of the sulphur dixoide and some other pollutants it gives off, compared with diesel or petrol, because of the high level of impurities in it. For the CO2 emissions, it's much the same as any other liquid hydrocarbon, for the energy received when burning it.

This report says the estimate of CO2 from shipping was increased in 2008 to 1.2 billion tons per year; but the estimate for all transport, back in 2002, was 4.9 billions tons - considerably larger than even the increased shipping figure.

[SteveM]

5. Finally, a return to "maximum economical speed."