5500 TEU CONTAINER VESSELS (ANS SERIES)

Courtesy MSC

Navgathi has been in the energy saving business for the past five years designing and building solar boats & ferries.

NAVGATHI MARINE

India * S.Korea * UAE

E N E R G Y S A V I N G B Y L I G H T I N G

Lighting using LED and Solar Power

W : w w w. n a v g a t h i . c o m • E : n a v @ n a v g a t h i . c o m • 1

1. Case Study for LED Replacement

Executive Summary

Energy  saving  through  ligh1ng  is  by  far  the  most  effec1ve  means  of  return  on  investment  for  a  shipowner  -­‐  less  than  two  years.  In  addi1on  it  is  one  of  the  few  methods  where  there  is  a  clear  means  of  measuring  the  benefits  of   installa1on  -­‐  electric  power  can  be  accurately  measured.  This  case  study  discusses  the  replace-­‐ment  of  fluorescent  tubes  (4  B  and  2  B)  with  the  LED  equivalent  (in  the  same  fiHng)  as  well  as  engine  room  flood  lights  with  induc1on  lights.  The  significant  reduc1on  in  power  consump1on  (one-­‐third)  and  extended  life  (six  1mes)  ensures  a  huge  savings  for  the  ship  owner.

Lights Summary

The  summary  of  lights  of  different  types  for  this  container  vessel  are  shown  below.  

LIGHTS NO. OF LIGHTS ORIGINAL RAT-ING (WATT)

ECO-LIGHTS RATING (WATT)

ECO-LIGHTS AS % OF ORIGINAL

4  B  Tubes 504 47* 18 38.3%

2  B  Tubes 777 34* 9 26.5%

Flood  Lights 5 580* 225 38.8%

* The above rating is actual measured one. For instance 40 W rated tubes actually consume 47 W

Cost of Power

The  cost  of  power  on  a  ship  is  the  total  opera1ng  cost  of  producing  the  electric  power.  Since  the  electric  generator  is  not  replaced  and  significant  change  in  maintenance  is  not  expected,  only  the  reduc1on  in  fuel  oil  and  lubrica1ng  oil  is  factored  in  the  cost  of  power  es1ma1on.

For  this  container  vessel  the  generator,  each  1800  kW  ra1ng,  is  running  at  1200  kW  load  (66%  MCR1)  where  SFOC2  is  the  high  -­‐  and  hence  cost  of  power  is  the  high.  

For  this  generator  with  SFOC  of  210  g/kWh  of  engine  power  corresponds  to  221  g/kWh  of  electrical  power.  Taking  IFO  380  cos1ng  US$  600/tonne3,  the  cost  of  electric  power  comes  to  US$  0.15/kWh  in  best  case  sce-­‐nario  and  US$  0.18/kWh  as  likely  scenario.  

LED Saving

Taking  the  above  table  showing  difference  in  wa`age  and  the  cost  of   electric  power  it  can  be  seen  below  that  the  difference  in  cost  will  break  even  in  less  than  one  year.  For  five  years  the  increase  in  F.O   cost  at  10%  per  year  is  taken.

N a v g a t h i M a r i n e! E n e r g y S a v i n g b y L i g h t i n g - 6 5 0 0 T E U C o n t a i n e r Ve s s e l

1

1 Maximum Continuos Rating

2 Specific Fuel Oil Consumption in g/kWh

3 http://www.bunkerworld.com

ECO LIGHTS COST (US$)

DIFFERENCE IN RATING (WATT)

SAVINGS / 1000 HRS (US$)

SAVINGS /YEAR (US$)

SAVINGS / 5 YEARS (US$)

4  B  Tubes 25 29 4.4 38.1 233

2  B  Tubes 20 25 3.8 32.9 201

Flood  Lights 550 355 53.3 466.5 2,848

The above does not factor the shorter life of normal tubes - 5000 hrs (one year if run 24 hrs/day) compared to six times for LED

Measurement

One  must  take  the  advantage  of  precision  in  measuring  electric  power  and  thereby  the  benefit  by  installing  energy  meters  in  the  ligh1ng  circuit.  In  this  series  the  first  vessel  is  installed  with  four  units  to  monitor  the  benefit.  The  readings  are  automa1cally  transferred  to  computer  and  savings  can  be  monitored.

Process

A  vessel  visit  was  done  to  finalise  the  proposal  (needed  only  on  one  vessel  in  sister  vessel  series)  including  number  of  fiHng,  ra1ng  and  no.  of  energy  meters.  Once  the  proposal  was  accepted  our  team  of   three  en-­‐gineers  will   visit   on  board   to   install   energy   meters,   replace   the   lights   and   replace   some  fiHngs  which  showed  earth  fault.

Consumption

A  summary  of  savings  in  energy  and  opera1ng  cost  is  shown  below.

LIGHTSDIFFER-

ENCE IN RATING (WATT)

NO. OF LIGHTS

AVERAGE R U N N I N G

HRS

SAVINGS/DAY

(KWH)

SAVINGS/YEAR (KWH)

SAVINGS/YEAR (US$)

SAVINGS IN 5 YEARS

(US$)

4  B  Tubes 29 504 23* 336 122,70118,405 112,366

4  B  Tubes 29 504 23* 336 122,70122,086 134,839

2  B  Tubes 25 777 22* 427 155,98323,397 142,844

2  B  Tubes 25 777 22* 427 155,98328,077 171,412

Flood  Lights 355 6 24 51 18,6592,799 17,087

Flood  Lights 355 6 24 51 18,6593,359 20,504

Total  @  0.15  $/kWhTotal  @  0.15  $/kWh1,287 815 297,343

44,601 272,296

Total  @  0.18  $/kWhTotal  @  0.18  $/kWh1,287 815 297,343

53,522 326,755

*The accommodation lights are assumed to be running 18 hrs per day and engine room lights 24 hrs per day

This  means  an  average  of  US$  47,000  per  year  savings  or  US$  287,000  in  five  years.

N a v g a t h i M a r i n e! E n e r g y S a v i n g b y L i g h t i n g - 6 5 0 0 T E U C o n t a i n e r Ve s s e l

2

For  this  vessel,  a  815  kWh  per  day  corresponds  to  34  kW  reduc1on  in  generator   load  which   is  2%  of   the  rated  power.  This  means  that  when  generator  is  normally  running  at  66%  MCR  it  will,  aBer  replacement,  running  at  64%  MCR.

The  savings  per  year  will  also  increase  with  the  increase  in  F.O  cost  which  is  expected  to  be  about  10%  year  on  year  (factored  in  five  year  savings  calcula1on  in  above  table).

Cost

The  total  installa1on  cost  for  this  vessel  is  about  US$  87,700.  This  includes  cost  of  equipment,  ini1al  visit,  monitoring,     and  installa1on.   It  can  be  separated  as  shown  below.  For  subsequent  vessels  the  monitoring  can  be  avoided  and  the  offer  in  those  would  be  US$  80,500.  For  five  vessels  this  investment  weighted  aver-­‐age  to  US$  81,940.

Spares

The  above  cos1ng  assumings  12%  addi1onal  spares  which  can  cover  for  the  five  years  with  further  order-­‐ing.  The  current  cos1ng  of  the  spares  are  at  a`rac1ve  rates  compared  to  US$  30-­‐40  when  ordered  through  ship  chandlers.  Moreover  these  lights  have  warranty  for  one  year  and  are  of  much  be`er  quality.

Savings

The  first  year  savings  from  reduc1on  in  F.O  consump1on  is  US$  47,000  and  grows  at  10%  annually.  Hence  the  installa1on  cost  of  US$  81,940  is  recovered  in  less  than  2  years.

US$ YEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5

INVESTMENT

SAVINGS

ACCUMULATED SAVINGS

81,940

47,000 51,700 56,870 62,557 68,813

47,000 98,700 155,570 218,127 286,940

Lights Installation Monitoring Freight

3%8%

36%53%

N a v g a t h i M a r i n e! E n e r g y S a v i n g b y L i g h t i n g - 6 5 0 0 T E U C o n t a i n e r Ve s s e l

3

2. Case Study with Solar Power

Executive Summary

Solar  energy  can  also  be  harnessed  to  reduce  the  fuel  consump1on  on  board  in  way  of  reducing  the  load  on  the  generator.  A  5  kW  solar  power  plant  with  grid-­‐1e  inverter  (without  ba`eries)   is  installed  in  the  vessel.  For  the  cost  of  power  of  US$  0.18  the  return  on  investment  is  about  six  years.  In  typical  vessels  where  gen-­‐erators  are  running  at  lower  load  in  sea,  the  returns  are  faster.  

Description

For  container  vessels  (even  bulk  carriers,  tankers)   the  area  available  for  installa1on  of   solar  panels  is  only  on  monkey  island.  In  this  vessel  a  5  kW  solar  power  plant  is  installed.  The  system  consists  of  SMA  grid-­‐1e  inverter,  6  kW  mono-­‐crystalline  rigid  panels,  approved  cables  and  protec1on  devices.  The  DC  power  gener-­‐ated  from  the  solar  panels  is  converted  to  AC  and  fed  to  the  grid  through  the  inverter  that  had  grid  interac-­‐1on  to  match  the  frequency  and  voltage.

Energy Production

The  energy  produced  from  solar  panels  is  on  average  for  5  standard  hours  in  a  day  which  means  1  kW  solar  panels  produce  5  kWh  of  electrical  energy  aBer  considering  all  losses.  A  6  kW  panel  produces  30  kWh  en-­‐ergy  per  day.  The  savings  per  year  will  also  increase  at  about  10%  year  on  year  factoring  F.O  price  increase.

SOLAR PANEL (KW)

PRODUCTION PER DAY (KWH/KW)

SAVINGS/DAY (KWH)

SAVINGS/YEAR (KWH)

SAVINGS/YEAR (US$)

SAVINGS IN 6YEARS (US$)

6 5 30 10,950 1,971 15,207

30 10,950 1,643 12,673

Cost

The  incremental  cost  of  this  installa1on  is  US$  15,000.

Savings

The  first  year  savings  from  reduc1on  in  F.O  consump1on  is  US$  1,971  and  grows  at  10%  annually.  Hence  for  US$  15,000  as  cost  of  installa1on  the  break-­‐even  1me  is  around  six  years  for  cost  of  power  of  US$  0.18  and  about  seven  years  if  it  is  US$  0.15.

US$ YEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7

INVESTMENT

SAVINGS

A C C U M U L AT E D SAVINGS

15,000

1,971 2,168 2,385 2,623 2,886 3,174 3,492

1,971 4,139 6,524 9,147 12,033 15,207 18,699

N a v g a t h i M a r i n e! E n e r g y S a v i n g b y L i g h t i n g - 6 5 0 0 T E U C o n t a i n e r Ve s s e l

4