4 ms·

If it reduces fuel consumption by 30%, wouldn't all ships want to have it? Is it too expensive, or what is the problem?

mogadsheu 7y ago
Shipping is a very conservative industry and hesitant to new things. Time to investment payback was longer than many companies were willing to stomach, which was shortened thanks to Norway subsidies. That said, they’re growing quickly, have a look!
dogma1138 7y ago
In shipping the cost is transferred easily down the line; capital investment in new vessels and new technologies is pretty slim because of that. Also the time spent in dry dock might as well cost you more than what you’ll gain through the service time of the vessel since many of these vessels change hands frequently sometimes even several times a year. Also because how risk is managed in the shipping industry none of these companies is exposed to any actual action, the vessels would almost never be owned by an entity with actual assets and they would essentially be registered to shells holding only debt. This is done to protect shipping companies from damages in case of accidents but it’s also very convenient to avoid any regulation since if they are caught there will be no legal entity to pay the fine.
- esyir 7y ago
  Hm, really stupid naive question here. What happens if violating ships were basically seized
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Shipping to/from/through the waters of whosoever is doing the seizing is going to get a lot more expensive.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Or, you know, the shipping companies could address that risk by complying with the relevant regulations.
  - dogma1138 7y ago
    Well they don’t have a strong basis to seize the vessels, right of passage is tricky and the vessels don’t turn those on while in territorial waters. Open systems have a sufficiently large capacity to store the contaminated water so they essentially only open the loop in international waters where no one can do anything about it. But in general it depends on who does it, for the most part if it’s a western country the country would loose in court since it will he sued by multiple parties with interest in the cargo but no actual liability. If it’s not then it’s either going to be a political waltz or just another act of piracy. The ship and cargo are insured some parties might make more money on losing the ship than if it had completed its transit including quite possibly its operator.
    - gruez 7y ago
      >Open systems have a sufficiently large capacity to store the contaminated water so they essentially only open the loop in international waters where no one can do anything about it. What about enacting a law that says "if you use cheating devices at all, you can't dock in our ports"?
      - dogma1138 7y ago
        >What about enacting a law that says "if you use cheating devices at all, you can't dock in our ports"? When 99.9% of vessels are doing the cheating, the shipping companies would say you would really like your people to go on a diet don’t you?
        gbrown 7y ago
        So give it a several year phase-in period, and provide mechanisms to remove/permanently disable the systems.
        dogma1138 7y ago
        That’s what has been done in this case which lead to cheating devices to be installed in the first place. It’s very hard to near impossible to do or enforce all it takes is a country just by you that is willing to accept them. People aren’t going to take a huge price hike and countries that are dependent on imports won’t ever enforce such requirements which would leave these vessels out there. At the end of the day unless you are willing to fund a fleet of 1000’s of new vessels and or pay to upgrade existing ones the shipping companies won’t budge and you won’t ever be able to push them into a corner since the economic fallout would be catastrophic for you but not much for them.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    "Ship arrest" is a legal concept: https://www.marineinsight.com/maritime-law/ship-arrest-under-maritime-law-reasons-procedure-and-precautions/amp/ https://www.marineinsight.com/maritime-law/ship-arrest-under... And no, I don't know much about it beyond the term and what's at the link above, but failure to abide by regulations is an allowable condition of arrest.
- stevespang 7y ago
  Then pass laws that immediately confiscate the entire ship upon verified environmental violations and sell them off at auction, the proceeds go to increase the size and scope of the environmental police agencies . . . .
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
  How does this ownership structure still survive today?
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    It's a free market. International treaties evolve slowly, so regulation is non-existent, and shipping is a race to the bottom industry. Ships are flagged and "regulated" in Liberia, Panama or wherever, crews are Filipino or Indonesian, and the officers are from another country (Greece, UK, US, etc). The ownership is always murky and unknown. The only exceptions are some intra-national shipping. US carriers are required if you're shipping from Alaska to California, for example.
- flyingfences 7y ago
  > In shipping the cost is transferred easily down the line; Would there not be a competitive advantage in being able to offer a lower price than your competitors to these customers "down the line" or is there some facet of the pricing practices that I'm missing?
dspillett 7y ago
It might be worth finding more detail, preferably externally verified, than a vague "up to 30%" claim before judging it as a no-brainer. Also from what I know of the shipping industry I would only expect it to be seen on new ships as the cost of retro-fitting would be high even without considering the opportunity cost of the ship needing to be in dry-dock for the operation (and needing to get to and from the dock, if there is not one where the work can be done along its owner's normal routes). And given ships change hands surprisingly often, how long it takes to hit break even (i.e when the cost of the fuel saved, less any extra maintenance costs the tech may be subject to in that time, equals extra initial outlay) will have a massive effect on whether it is worth it to the initial owner of a new ship. And a new ship is a huge capital expenditure, with a long lead time from plan to implementation. If the tech is relatively new it may not have existed at all when ships currently rolling into service were conceived, and with that level of capital involved designers are going to be pretty conservative about the risk of trying relatively new tech, so maybe it will become common but at a much later time.

Shipping is a very conservative industry and hesitant to new things. Time to investment payback was longer than many companies were willing to stomach, which was shortened thanks to Norway subsidies. That said, they’re growing quickly, have a look!

dogma1138 7y ago

In shipping the cost is transferred easily down the line; capital investment in new vessels and new technologies is pretty slim because of that. Also the time spent in dry dock might as well cost you more than what you’ll gain through the service time of the vessel since many of these vessels change hands frequently sometimes even several times a year. Also because how risk is managed in the shipping industry none of these companies is exposed to any actual action, the vessels would almost never be owned by an entity with actual assets and they would essentially be registered to shells holding only debt. This is done to protect shipping companies from damages in case of accidents but it’s also very convenient to avoid any regulation since if they are caught there will be no legal entity to pay the fine.

esyir 7y ago
Hm, really stupid naive question here. What happens if violating ships were basically seized
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Shipping to/from/through the waters of whosoever is doing the seizing is going to get a lot more expensive.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Or, you know, the shipping companies could address that risk by complying with the relevant regulations.
- dogma1138 7y ago
  Well they don’t have a strong basis to seize the vessels, right of passage is tricky and the vessels don’t turn those on while in territorial waters. Open systems have a sufficiently large capacity to store the contaminated water so they essentially only open the loop in international waters where no one can do anything about it. But in general it depends on who does it, for the most part if it’s a western country the country would loose in court since it will he sued by multiple parties with interest in the cargo but no actual liability. If it’s not then it’s either going to be a political waltz or just another act of piracy. The ship and cargo are insured some parties might make more money on losing the ship than if it had completed its transit including quite possibly its operator.
  - gruez 7y ago
    >Open systems have a sufficiently large capacity to store the contaminated water so they essentially only open the loop in international waters where no one can do anything about it. What about enacting a law that says "if you use cheating devices at all, you can't dock in our ports"?
    - dogma1138 7y ago
      >What about enacting a law that says "if you use cheating devices at all, you can't dock in our ports"? When 99.9% of vessels are doing the cheating, the shipping companies would say you would really like your people to go on a diet don’t you?
      - gbrown 7y ago
        So give it a several year phase-in period, and provide mechanisms to remove/permanently disable the systems.
        dogma1138 7y ago
        That’s what has been done in this case which lead to cheating devices to be installed in the first place. It’s very hard to near impossible to do or enforce all it takes is a country just by you that is willing to accept them. People aren’t going to take a huge price hike and countries that are dependent on imports won’t ever enforce such requirements which would leave these vessels out there. At the end of the day unless you are willing to fund a fleet of 1000’s of new vessels and or pay to upgrade existing ones the shipping companies won’t budge and you won’t ever be able to push them into a corner since the economic fallout would be catastrophic for you but not much for them.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  "Ship arrest" is a legal concept: https://www.marineinsight.com/maritime-law/ship-arrest-under-maritime-law-reasons-procedure-and-precautions/amp/ https://www.marineinsight.com/maritime-law/ship-arrest-under... And no, I don't know much about it beyond the term and what's at the link above, but failure to abide by regulations is an allowable condition of arrest.
stevespang 7y ago
Then pass laws that immediately confiscate the entire ship upon verified environmental violations and sell them off at auction, the proceeds go to increase the size and scope of the environmental police agencies . . . .
hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
How does this ownership structure still survive today?
- Spooky23 7y ago
  It's a free market. International treaties evolve slowly, so regulation is non-existent, and shipping is a race to the bottom industry. Ships are flagged and "regulated" in Liberia, Panama or wherever, crews are Filipino or Indonesian, and the officers are from another country (Greece, UK, US, etc). The ownership is always murky and unknown. The only exceptions are some intra-national shipping. US carriers are required if you're shipping from Alaska to California, for example.
flyingfences 7y ago
> In shipping the cost is transferred easily down the line; Would there not be a competitive advantage in being able to offer a lower price than your competitors to these customers "down the line" or is there some facet of the pricing practices that I'm missing?

dspillett 7y ago

It might be worth finding more detail, preferably externally verified, than a vague "up to 30%" claim before judging it as a no-brainer. Also from what I know of the shipping industry I would only expect it to be seen on new ships as the cost of retro-fitting would be high even without considering the opportunity cost of the ship needing to be in dry-dock for the operation (and needing to get to and from the dock, if there is not one where the work can be done along its owner's normal routes). And given ships change hands surprisingly often, how long it takes to hit break even (i.e when the cost of the fuel saved, less any extra maintenance costs the tech may be subject to in that time, equals extra initial outlay) will have a massive effect on whether it is worth it to the initial owner of a new ship. And a new ship is a huge capital expenditure, with a long lead time from plan to implementation. If the tech is relatively new it may not have existed at all when ships currently rolling into service were conceived, and with that level of capital involved designers are going to be pretty conservative about the risk of trying relatively new tech, so maybe it will become common but at a much later time.