Ultra-large container ships: the green ships of the future? A study commissioned by Lloyd s Register concluded that ultra-large container ships of up to 12,500 teu are entirely feasible and that the first of these vessels may be in service by 2010. In addition to the economies of scale such vessels will offer, they also have the potential to offer substantial environmental benefits, as David Tozer, Lloyd s Register s Business Manager Container Ships, explains. In recent years there has been much speculation surrounding the future prospects for larger container ships. Discussion has been fuelled by the rapid increase in the volume of container trades, by changes in trading patterns and by the shift from ownership towards long-term chartering of new tonnage. Since the introduction of containerisation over 40 years ago, the size of container ships has increased dramatically. Until the mid-1980s, size was limited by the dimensional constraints of the Panama Canal (principally, 32.2-metre beam). Since then, the development of the post-panamax fleet has been dramatic; today 30% of the world s fleet, by capacity, is post-panamax. The largest of the ships currently on order have capacities of more than 8,000 teu, and there is clearly scope for even larger ships. A number of studies in recent years have focused on the potential for mega-container ships designed for dedicated trades. Probably the most well known of these is the Malacca-max concept developed by Professor Niko Wijnolst [1]. However, it is probably more relevant today to ascertain the largest size of container ship which can offer the same trading flexibility as today s largest ships while delivering the maximum economy of scale. This was the focus of the ultra-large container ship (ULCS) study initiated by Lloyd s Register, in association with Ocean Shipping Consultants Ltd, in 1999 [2,3]. Prediction of the basic dimensions of the next generation of ultra-large container ships must commence with an understanding of the current and anticipated future capabilities of the infra-structure with which these ships must interface. It is nonsense to consider the ships in isolation; they must be considered as part of a complete intermodal transport process. This is a necessary change of philosophy from previous generations when the ships could be designed to provide optimum performance at sea, knowing that the terminals could provide whatever capacity and capability was required to service the vessels during their brief periods in port.
14000 12000 MAXIMUM SHIP SIZE BY YEAR OF BUILD 10000 TEU 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Of course, there can be no justification for the introduction of ULCSs without the necessary volume of trade to absorb the additional capacity and keep the ships fully utilised. The demand for containerisation, however, continues unabated, and it is this rapid demand growth which is underpinning the vast amount of new tonnage currently being ordered. The trend is expected to continue for some time yet, albeit with some peaks and troughs as the market responds to variations in newbuild prices and availability of building slots (building slots at the major container shipbuilding yards are currently scarce, with some quoting full order books until 2006). A further prerequisite for the introduction of larger container ships is their economic viability compared to today s fleet. This was examined in depth by OSC, on behalf of Lloyd s Register. The clear conclusion was that the trend is forever upwards, to 12,500 teu capacity, at which point infrastructure limitations constrain the operational flexibility of the vessels. The principal conclusions are illustrated in the two charts below. The first indicates the scale economies per container, taking into account the major costs associated with trading the vessels, including capital charges, maintenance, manning and fuel. It is clear that the larger ships offer reduced cost, even taking into account the additional time spent in port. The calculations have been carried out on the assumption that a trading speed of 25 knots will be required across this entire range of ship sizes. This necessitates a twin-engine installation for ships of 10,000 teu and above. The second chart illustrates the effect of permitting the trading speed to drop to speeds achievable with a single-screw arrangement. Despite the reduced productivity (the slower speed reduces the number of containers which can be delivered per annum), the overall effect is a significant reduction in the cost of delivering each container. While variations in bunker prices and other consumables will vary the absolute cost, the relative position is unlikely to change significantly, and it is therefore our belief that the financial benefits of the larger, slower vessels will remain.
450 416 Vessel Costs - US$/FEU 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 368 353 333 50 0 6800TEU 8800TEU 10700TEU (twin engine) 12500TEU (twin engine) 450 416 400 368 Vessel Costs - US$/FEU 350 300 250 200 150 100 316 297 50 0 6800TEU - 25 knots 8800TEU - 25 knots 10700TEU - 24 knots 12500TEU - 23 knots Environmental Considerations In addition to delivering economies of scale, large container ships also offer several environmental benefits that their smaller counterparts do not, above and beyond the obvious benefits of reduced fuel consumption, and hence emissions, per container transported. Economies of scale bring with them the possibilities of technical systems which are not viable for smaller ships from a financial standpoint. The scale economies associated with the largest ships may make it economically viable to install additional and more sophisticated equipment to improve environmental performance, such as systems to improve fuel economy and to reduce emissions.
ULCSs will share the benefits obtainable by the post-panamax fleet with regard to ballast water management, for instance. Whereas smaller container ships, and especially those of panamax size, tend to carry large amounts of ballast water for stability and longitudinal strength reasons, the amount of ballast water carried is reduced significantly once the panamax limit has been passed. Thus global transfer of marine organisms, which might be perceived as a major risk for the liner trades, is likely to be less of a problem with larger ships. It has also been observed that, as fewer ULCSs will be required than if the same cargo volume was to be traded by smaller ships, there is the possibility of employing the very best calibre of crew, thereby ensuring the very best standards of ship operational management. It has been suggested that, as most marine accidents are caused by human error, it is possible that ULCSs could reduce maritime risk, both with regard to safety of people and of the environment. As stated earlier, the principal dimensions of these vessels have been selected so that they can access the same terminals as today s largest container ships. Thus, environmental fears with regard to dredging can be laid to rest. However, these considerations must be weighed against the impact on the wider fleet. Introduction of ULCSs could stimulate the development of hub-spoke systems, instead of direct delivery and thus increase the demand for feeder vessels. Whereas ULCSs offer environmental benefits of scale, the feeder ships may well operate in a less environmentally friendly regime, thereby countering some of the environmental benefits identified above. Environmental implications are always difficult to evaluate, especially when considering the implications throughout the entire intermodal transport process. References [1] Malacca-max: The Ultimate Container Carrier, Wijnolst, N, Scholtens, M and Waals, F, Delft University Press, 1999. [2] Container Ships: Design Aspects of Larger Vessels, Tozer, D.R and Penfold, A, Lloyd s Register and Ocean Shipping Consultants Ltd, RINA/IMarE Presentation, London, March 2000. [3] Ultra-Large Container Ships (ULCS): Designing to the limit of current and projected terminal infrastructure capabilities, Lloyd s Register Technical Association, 2002.
If you have any enquiries regarding the content of this article, please contact: David Tozer Business Manager Container Ships Lloyd s Register, London tel: +44 (0)20 7423 1562 fax: +44 (0)20 7423 1824 email: david.tozer@lr.org Lloyd s Register, its affiliates and subsidiaries and their respective officers, employees or agents are, individually and collectively, referred to in this clause as the LR Group. The Lloyd's Register Group assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or expense caused by reliance on the information or advice in this document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a contract with the relevant Lloyd's Register Group entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that case any responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and conditions set out in that contract.