No time, no resources and no money

The problem is not one of possibilities but of means: no time, no human resources and no money.

No Time:

Our employees are usually assigned a range of tasks that take up most of their time. Increasing their work load is often difficult, if not impossible. Hiring additional staff increases overhead costs which usually doesn’t sit well with investors.

Hiring qualified experts on a contractual basis is therefore the best solution.

No Human Resources:

There is no getting around the fact that reducing GHGs on a ship is achieved through energy efficiency. While this may be widely recognized, implementing such a change is not as simple as it would appear.

It requires people with specific skills and years of experience on numerous sites. Before implementing measures to reduce GHGs, a ship’s energy balance must be determined. Every component of its facilities must be measured using a number of instruments, and a study of its operating practices must be carried out. Every ship is different. Even similarly built ships often have different features.

The range of specialized equipment needed to perform these evaluations are not part of the tools usually used on a ship. Very few shipowners would want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on such instruments, especially if their personnel are not qualified to use them. 

We all aware of how complicated it can be to hire a contractor who is unfamiliar with ships. Doing business with certified and experienced chief engineers is clearly worthwhile. 

Here again, hiring qualified experts who have their own instruments is the best solution.  

No Money:

The advantage of setting up an energy efficiency program is that it pays for itself, a fact that has been demonstrated many times over. Indeed, even when the price of fuel is relatively low, there are always approaches or projects that can result in very attractive paybacks.

In the field of energy efficiency consulting on land, many firms finance their projects through the savings they generate. And that, even when the price of electricity is as low as 0.10$/kWh (hydro).

For example, a system that automatically reduces energy consumption on a ship by the equivalent of 25kW can easily generate a 14% return over 5 years, even when the price of HFO is $350 per ton.

This yield rises to 50% over 5 years with a PETMAF subsidy. With that kind of return, even borrowing from a bank at 8% becomes advantageous.

Currently, there are no investments that can earn as high a yield. Energy efficiency on a ship should therefore not be seen as an expense but as an investment, especially given the fact that the price of fuel will only rise in the future.

Under these circumstances, the case for not having any money does not hold up.

The stake here is not so much the cost-effectiveness of the projects, but the solutions that are available to the shipowner to reduce his GHG emissions.

Contact us for more details on how GHGES Marine Solutions can help you reduce your GHG emissions, improve your operations, and lower your fuel costs.