BURNING DINOSAUR

BONES
The Rise of Fossil Fuel in the Maritime Industry and the U.S. Merchant
Marine’s Potential Role in the New Industrial Revolution

Submitted by:
Chad N. Fuhrmann

Submitted to:
Jose Femenia, PE
Thesis Advisor

Date Submitted:
May 5, 2009

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Marine Engineering
Dedicated…

…to the future.

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................8

I. THE RISE OF FOSSIL FUEL.......................................................................................10

A. THE EVOLUTION OF FUEL AND THE MARITIME INDUSTRY ........................................10

1. The Industrial Revolution and the Switch from Sail to Steam.................................10
2. Technology Creeps across the Atlantic..................................................................12
3. The Golden Age of the United States Merchant Marine.........................................14

B. THE EARLY WORLD FUEL MARKET ..........................................................................17

1. The Civil War and the U.S. Industrial Revolution..................................................17
2. New Shipbuilding and Technology in World War I................................................20
3. The Introduction of the Internal Combustion Engine.............................................21
4. World War II and the Advent of the Modern Merchant Marine..............................23
5. The Nuclear Ship Savannah ..................................................................................25

II. MARITIME POLICY AND THE 20TH CENTURY OIL-BASED WORLD

ECONOMY ....................................................................................................................27

A. MARITIME POLICY AND ITS EFFECTS ON SHIPBUILDING AND TECHNOLOGY .............27

1. The Effect of War on the Maritime Industry ..........................................................27
2. Merchant Marine Policy and Legislation ..............................................................29

B. FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENCY IN THE POST-WAR WORLD ECONOMY ...........................32

1. The New Global Fuel Market ................................................................................32
2. Increasing Population and Supporting Industries..................................................35

III. THE NEW INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION ..................................................................37

A. THE IMPACT OF FOSSIL FUEL ....................................................................................37

1. The Environmental Consequences of the Fossil Fuel Addiction.............................37
2. The Environmental Impact of the Marine Industry ................................................39
3. Fossil Fuel Supply, Renewable Energies, and Alternative Fuels............................43

B. THE NEW INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND THE MARITIME INDUSTRY .......................48

1. Environmental Policy and How it Affects the Marine Industry ..............................48
2. Market Considerations on the Adoption of New Technologies...............................51
3. The Role of the Marine Industry in the New Industrial Revolution.........................54
4. Marine Industry Reaction to the New Industrial Revolution ..................................55

C. “THE PROPER SOLUTION OF …CERTAIN FUEL PROBLEMS”? ...................................57

1
 1. Traditional Power Plants, Fossil Fuel, and Associated Alternatives......................57
2. Waste Heat Recovery and Emission Control Systems ............................................58
3. Gas Turbine Power Plants ....................................................................................60
4. Advanced Hull Designs and Coatings ...................................................................63
5. Too Little, Too Late ..............................................................................................66

IV. THE FUTURE OF THE U.S. MERCHANT MARINE ................................................68

A. NON-FOSSIL FUEL ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................68

1. Engines of Change................................................................................................68
2. Alternative Fuels...................................................................................................69
3. Fuel Cells .............................................................................................................72
4. Nuclear Power......................................................................................................76

B. MERGING YESTERDAY’S METHODS WITH TOMORROW’S TECHNOLOGY ..................80

1. Industrial (R)evolution and the Hybrid Solution....................................................80
2. The Modern Age of Sail ........................................................................................81
3. A New Spin on Turbine Propulsion .......................................................................84

V. A COMBINED EFFORT TOWARD A COMMON GOAL ........................................89

A. GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY SUPPORT....................................................................89

1. The New Administration and Its Economic and Energy Plans ...............................89
2. Industry-Supportive Legislation ............................................................................91
3. Cooperation between Military and Commercial Sectors........................................94

B. CHANGE FROM WITHIN .............................................................................................97

1. Proactive Industry Leadership ..............................................................................97
2. The Will to Evolve.................................................................................................98
3. The Education and Training of Industry Leaders ................................................101
4. National and Industry Involvement in a Global Concern .....................................103

VI. ECONOMICS AND OPPORTUNITIES.....................................................................106

A. THE ADVANTAGES OF AN ALTERNATIVE MERCHANT MARINE ................................106

1. Green with Envy: Setting an Example for the Transportation Industry ...............106

B. NATIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.............................................109

1. The U.S. Merchant Marine and National Energy Security ...................................109
2. The U.S. Maritime Industry as a Tool for Economic Recovery ............................110

VII. CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................114

A. APPROACHING BOTTOM DEAD CENTER ..................................................................114

2
 B. A NEW GOLDEN AGE FOR THE U.S. MERCHANT MARINE? .....................................115

APPENDIX: NOTES AND CALCULATIONS ..................................................................119

WORKS CITED....................................................................................................................147

SECONDARY SOURCES ....................................................................................................155

PHOTO CREDITS................................................................................................................158

3
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: S.S. Savannah..................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 2: Ann McKim, the first American clipper ship..................................................................................... 15
Figure 3: N.S. Savannah, circa 1962.................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 4: Growth of the crude oil tanker .......................................................................................................... 32
Figure 5: World crude oil consumption ............................................................................................................ 33
Figure 6: World petroleum consumption comparison...................................................................................... 33
Figure 7: U.S. oil production vs. U.S. oil imports.............................................................................................. 34
Figure 8: World population and oil production................................................................................................ 36
Figure 9: Global temperature rise..................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 10: Current petroleum use by sector ..................................................................................................... 39
Figure 11: Crude oil consumption in the U.S. transportation industry............................................................ 40
Figure 12: Projected energy use through 2095 ................................................................................................. 40
Figure 13: Projected emissions, marine vs. stationary power plants................................................................ 41
Figure 14: Emissions from selected marine vessels........................................................................................... 42
Figure 15: Emissions by source for container ports.......................................................................................... 43
Figure 16: Predicted carbon output based on current energy demand............................................................ 44
Figure 17: Predicted global carbon emissions................................................................................................... 44
Figure 18: Predicted carbon output utilizing different fuel/energy sources..................................................... 45
Figure 19: Global oil production forecast ......................................................................................................... 46
Figure 20: The top five pressures driving green product development ............................................................ 51
Figure 21: Performance of green stocks............................................................................................................ 52
Figure 22: Breakdown of estimated direct environmental damage costs on emissions/revenue ...................... 53
Figure 23: Projected ship demand through 2055.............................................................................................. 54
Figure 24: MAN 51/60DF dual fuel gas engine ................................................................................................. 58
Figure 25: Comparison of annual NOx emissions (in tons), diesel plant vs. cold iron ..................................... 60
Figure 26: Three basic gas turbine plants......................................................................................................... 61
Figure 27: Concept Super Marine Gas Turbine (SMGT) for marine applications.......................................... 62
Figure 28: Speed vs. power output based on hull condition ............................................................................. 63
Figure 29: Bow section with bulbous bow being fitted on hull of CVN-77....................................................... 64
Figure 30: Stern flap, installed on a DDG-51.................................................................................................... 65
Figure 31: U.S. Navy-leased high-speed catamaran Joint Venture, and the Russian Korabl Maket, WIG
vehicle ......................................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 32: Engine flow process and typical exhaust gas composition .............................................................. 66
Figure 33: EISA-mandated biofuel usage ......................................................................................................... 69
Figure 34: Carbon dioxide emissions comparison of various fuels................................................................... 70
Figure 35: Heating values of selected fuels........................................................................................................ 71
Figure 36: Basic polymer electrolytic membrane (PEM) fuel cell operation.................................................... 72
Figure 37: Types of fuel cells and basic description.......................................................................................... 73
Figure 38: Hydrogen pathways ......................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 39: The Hindenburg disaster, 06 May 1937 ........................................................................................... 75
Figure 40: Power density comparison ............................................................................................................... 77
Figure 41: Mushroom cloud following an unrestrained nuclear reaction ........................................................ 78
Figure 42: Modern Beluga SkySail® installed on merchant vessel .................................................................. 82
Figure 43: Flettner’s Rotorship, Bruckau, circa 1926 and Artist's conception of Enercon's E-Ship 1 ............ 82
Figure 44: Artist's conception of Solarsailor cargo vessel................................................................................. 83
Figure 45: Green Horn, hybrid ferry power plant ............................................................................................ 84
Figure 46: A fuel cell hybrid steam plant.......................................................................................................... 85
Figure 47: Hybrid nuclear-steam propulsion plant concept for LNG tanker .................................................. 86
Figure 48: Hybrid nuclear-gas turbine ............................................................................................................. 87
Figure 49: Relative environmental impact of proposed FastShip propulsion plants ....................................... 88
Figure 50: Barack Obama campaign poster ..................................................................................................... 89
Figure 51: Ton-miles traveled per gallon of fuel............................................................................................. 106
Figure 52: Emissions comparison between the major modes of transportation............................................. 107

4
Figure 53: Diesel particulate matter from goods movement........................................................................... 107
Figure 54: U.S. share of world shipping fleet.................................................................................................. 110
Figure 55: International marine industry growth........................................................................................... 111
Figure 56: Number and size of the U.S. flag merchant fleet and its share of the world fleet ......................... 112
Figure 57: Fuel, movie promotional poster..................................................................................................... 116

5
I'm burnin’
burnin’ diesel,
diesel, burnin’
urnin’ dinosaur bones.
Soundgarden, Rusty Cage

Mind the world that’s dying, it isn’t yours to kill.

Chuck Ragan, It’s What You Will

6
ABSTRACT

The world is in the midst of the chaotic New Industrial Revolution. Waves of green are

crashing against every continent and the blackened shores of the industrialized nations are being

washed away to reveal a new world of business, trade, and economic opportunities founded upon

earth-friendly principles. Major industries around the world are researching, developing, and

adopting new environmentally sound technologies to assist them in reducing their carbon

footprint and their overall impact on the planet. In methods, machinery, efficiency, savings, and

ultimately profits, much of the industrialized world is seeing and believing green.

These same green waves are breaking over the collective bow of the global maritime

industry. Unfortunately, the United States Merchant Marine is grounded in the shallow thinking

of the past. The reluctance to fund research and development into propulsion technology and to

adopt even current technological developments in the maritime industry is a philosophy that has

been forged by historical trends in the marine industry and in government maritime policy. This

paper examines those trends and the future sources of fuel and energy for the United States

Merchant Marine and the promise these new technologies hold for the entire industry. As a

result, it will be shown that by casting off the outdated mindset and methods of the past, the U.S.

maritime industry could once again become a maritime power and set an example for the rest of

the world to follow.

7
INTRODUCTION

Until very recent times the world in general and the United States in
particular has devoted but little time to a consideration of the nature,
adequacy and sources of its fuel supply. It is, however, no longer possible
to continue in this attitude of mind; and it is my intention to ask you to
spend a few moments in the examination of certain fuel problems, with the
proper solution of which the future of the American Merchant Marine will
be intimately connected (Kellogg 1921, p.277).

The problems examined in Fredric Kellogg’s 1921 paper are very similar to those faced by

the U.S. Merchant Marine today. When his paper was presented to the Academy of Political

Science, Kellogg was urging the United States to begin looking worldwide for sources of fuel oil

to power its merchant fleet. The country had recently taken the unprecedented step of promoting

fuel oil-fired boilers over the more common coal-fired boilers of the period. By doing so, it

introduced the world to what would become the lifeblood of every major industry in the world

and the foundation of the modern global economy.

The U.S. was initially reluctant to adopt the fossil fuel-powered technology that was

introduced during the Industrial Revolution preferring instead to continue with advancements in

sailing ship design and building techniques. The U.S. government in turn passed legislation to

support the maritime industry in its endeavors to this end. As a result, when the rest of the world

was plying the world’s oceans in steam-powered vessels, the United States was trying to

maintain its trade with a beautifully outdated sailing fleet.

Similar scenarios have been repeated many times in United States history and are still

relevant today. The reluctance of the present U.S. marine industry to adopt new technologies

combined with ultimately ineffective government maritime policies are inhibiting the country’s

progress in the global maritime industry. The U.S. government and Merchant Marine cannot

afford to remain complacent regarding the adoption and implementation of green technologies.

8
 The world is only now seeing the inevitable consequences of what has become an

international oil addiction. Worldwide, advancements are being made in the area of alternative

and renewable energy sources that are more environmentally friendly than fossil fuel. In the

meantime, the United States marine industry continues to utilize diesel engines that burn

polluting petroleum fuel oils. Even advancements in diesel engine efficiency are left up to

foreign industries with many of today’s diesel engine innovation originating in Europe or Asia.

The maritime industry’s current path is just an updated version of the old. While the rest of the

world is making strides toward upholding the standards outlined in such legislation as the Kyoto

Protocol—which, to date, the United States has failed to ratify—U.S. industries continue to lag

behind and will soon be struggling to meet the minimum requirements of current international

legislation.

The purpose of this paper is the same as that presented by Kellogg’s paper almost a century

ago. While the situation faced by the modern U.S. Merchant Marine may be very different,

“certain fuel problems” are again of foremost concern in the industry. Other sectors of the

transportation industry are under increasingly stringent regulations and have been subject to them

for decades. As a result, new technologies utilizing environmentally friendly principles are

emerging daily that assist overland transportation in mitigating the damage they cause. It was

not until relatively recently that similar policies and regulations affecting the marine industry

have come into force and their impact on the industry is only now being felt. The international

marine industry is fast becoming the primary target in the opening volleys of the New Industrial

Revolution—a revolution that is seeing fossil fuel become, as the name subtly suggests, a thing

of the past.

9
I. THE RISE OF FOSSIL FUEL

Gimme fuel, gimme fire, gimme that which I desire.

∼ Metallica, Fuel

A. THE EVOLUTION OF FUEL AND THE MARITIME INDUSTRY

The displacement of sail by steam, and of wood by iron and then steel,
took place over many decades; but its progress was inexorable. Had this
technological challenge not appeared, there would have been no
alternative to wind and wood and their costs and limitations would have
been accepted as unavoidable (Gibson 2000, p.44).

1. The Industrial Revolution and the Switch from Sail to Steam

The origins of the modern fossil fuel-powered merchant marine can be traced back to the
development of the steam engine during the eighteenth century Industrial Revolution. While
steam power plants in various forms had been in existence for nearly two centuries, it was the
work of British inventors during this period that renewed great interest in steam power and its
potential for varied industrial applications.
The efficient steam engine and the use of coal as fuel developed concurrently during the
Industrial Revolution. Furnaces and other industrial applications for coal were burgeoning
throughout Britain at this time and the demand was increasing. Coalmines throughout the
country had to increase their output to keep up with the demand. As a result, the mining
companies had to reach deeper deposits. Thomas Savery’s steam power plant, first patented in
1698, was developed to drive the pumps used to clear water from deep mineshafts. His invention
was originally fueled by wood but logic soon dictated that these pumps be fueled by the coal
they assisted in mining. As a result, more coal was made available for fuel, providing an
inexpensive means of steam production. This allowed for the increased use of steam power
throughout Britain’s industrial sector. Coal-fired steam plants would become the driving force
behind the Industrial Revolution worldwide.
The increased availability of coal likewise made the application of steam power in the
maritime industry more plausible. Initially, the large supply of wood made it the ideal fuel for
early steam-powered inland and near coastal water transportation. However, because of its
relatively low heating value, wood fuel made steam-powered ships for ocean transit impractical.

10
An oceangoing vessel would have to carry an amount of wood far in excess of the ship’s
capability. The inefficiency of wood fuel and its decreasing supply soon made obvious the need
for an alternative. Once it was established that a ship could carry an adequate supply of coal to
cross the Atlantic Ocean, the maritime industries in Britain and Europe turned to coal to fuel
their burgeoning steam-powered fleet, as well.
Savery continued his work alongside the likes of Thomas Newcomen, continuing to
experiment and perfect the steam power plant well into the eighteenth century. These inventors
eventually developed the first steam engines with commercial application and appeal (Thurston
1879, pp.48-60). In 1775, James Watt produced a steam engine with potential for propulsion in
waterborne vessels. While his was not the first to be used in such an application, it was the first
steam engine to employ significant improvements to the earlier engines that greatly increased
their efficiency (Greenwood 1999, p.4). These advancements made the steam plant much more
compact and allowed designers and engineers to consider the idea of “portable” steam power.

The pursuit of an energy-efficient steam engine was on. The older

Newcomen steam engine of 1769 needed 30 pounds of coal per
horsepower hour, while a Watt engine of 1776 required 7.5 pounds. By
1850 or so, this number had been reduced to 2.5. So the cost of steam
power fell dramatically over the course of the Industrial Revolution
(ibid.).

As with the evolution of fuel, another series of synchronistic developments assisted in the
application of steam power to merchant and naval fleets. Britain’s forests had been stripped bare
in the decades leading up to the Industrial Revolution, requiring the country’s marine industry to
look elsewhere for its shipbuilding material. As a result, by the mid-1800s iron was already
being used extensively. At first, it was used in conjunction with wood as structural
reinforcement and eventually replaced wood almost entirely in vessel construction (Thiesen
2006, p.61). Soon this material would give way to steel, thanks to Henry Bessemer’s
improvements on existing smelting processes (Landes 1998, p.190). With the production of this
higher strength, lighter weight steel the shipbuilding industry was introduced to the material
necessary to advance boiler and steam engine designs. Iron and steel ships soon became the
ideal platforms for the steam engine, which was more capable of propelling the larger, heavier
vessels.

11
 Additionally, unlike their wooden counterparts, iron and steel ships generally do not burn.
The improved materials that led to safer, more efficient steam plants thereby also led to greater
reliability in the delivery of goods and a dramatic decrease in insurance costs to ship goods
overseas. Steam power would soon allow fleets of ships from many nations to conquer the
oceans.

It seems as if God, admitting Man in participation of divine Omnipotence,

had given him an element of his own, and said, "Go! Take thou this as thy
command, with it thou shalt traverse every sea, thou shalt neither wait for
winds, nor dread the storm; thy power shall exceed my power, thy element
vanquish my elements, the most intricate channels shalt thou explore
unaided by me.” ...The discovery of the Copernican system, the invention
of the Press, the application of the Steam-Engine to the purposes of
navigation, are epochs engraved on the tablets of eternity (Richardson
1825, pp.5-6).

2. Technology Creeps across the Atlantic

Ultimately, however, American inventors would be the first to introduce steam power to
the merchant marine. The first steam-powered boat for commercial use was launched on the
Delaware River by John Fitch in 1787. Twenty years later, Robert Fulton began operation of the
first commercially successful steam-powered vessel, the Clermont. These and other inland and
coastal steam-powered commercial steamboats led to the New York-built Savannah in 1819
(Gibson 2000, pp.47-50), the first steamship to transit the Atlantic Ocean.

Figure 1: S.S. Savannah (Butler 1997, p.39).

12
 Although the Savannah was arguably a technical success, its steam plant was not used to
any significant extent during the well-publicized maiden voyage. As a result, the vessel and its
hybrid steam plant was not deemed commercially viable. Thus, despite this initial U.S. jump on
the industry, steam propulsion for maritime use first developed in Britain and Europe rather than
in the Americas. It would be almost another half century, at the dawn of the Industrial
Revolution in the United States, before steam-powered vessels would begin to see any significant
use in the U.S. Merchant Marine.
However, thanks to inland and near-coastal shipping, the U.S. led the world in the
application of steam power to the maritime industry for a brief period. Steam plants were
installed on vessels plying the inland waterways and near-coastal shipping routes where wood, as
the primary source of fuel and building material was plentiful and readily available. At this time,
wood was still a more practical fuel to use than coal. As steamship use increased in the United
States for inland and coastal shipping, however, many in the U.S. maritime industry grew
concerned about its fuel supply. It was estimated as early as 1825 that the thirteen steamers that
sailed the Hudson alone consumed sixteen hundred cords of wood per week while the New York
ferry boats consumed an additional fourteen hundred cords weekly (Abbot 1919, pp.68-70).

So rapidly now did the use of the steamboat increase on Long Island
Sound, on the rivers and along the coast that newspapers began to discuss
gravely the question whether the supply of fuel would long hold out. The
boats used wood exclusively—coal was then but little used—and despite
the vast forests which covered the face of the land the price of wood in
cities rose because of their demand (ibid., p.68).

Because of its tarry nature and relatively high levels of impurities, bituminous coal was
difficult to handle and was not considered a practical replacement for wood fuel. In 1826,
however, mechanically powered forced-draft furnaces were developed for shipboard use that
allowed coal to be burned much more efficiently. The discovery of the cleaner burning
anthracite coal in significant quantities in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and elsewhere drastically
reduced the price of coal allowing it to fuel the massive transformation to steam power and
allowed industry to spread. On the inland waterway run from New York to Albany, twenty tons
of anthracite coal replaced forty cords of firewood at less than half the price and occupying
eighty percent less space (Butler 1997, p.34).

13
 At the same time, another industry that turned the country’s attention away from the oceans
helped push modern fossil fuel power into the spotlight. The national network of railroads was
being developed, helping to unite the vast expanse of the United States now stretching from the
Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans. The first transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869,
opening the entire continent to exploration from coast to coast. Like the future power plants of
the merchant marine, the trains that rode the rails were powered by steam produced from coal-
fired boilers.
This was an example of a self-sufficient technology that demonstrated the economic
advantage of fossil fuel use beyond existing limits. Like the mining of coal in Britain that
powered the pumps required to mine it, trains were used to haul coal during the westward
expansion of the United States. By using the very fuel they were transporting, the trains showed
just how economical the use of fossil fuel could be. The same could be said for the ships and
boats hauling goods and passengers west during this same period. By burning the coal, that was
also being carried as cargo, the need for an exclusive fuel supply on board the vessel, such as a
separate space reserved for wood was eliminated.
Despite the now demonstrated advantages of coal-generated steam power for propulsion,
the U.S. was much slower in adopting the steamship for ocean use and did not follow the
example of Britain and Europe until late in the nineteenth century. Competition with steam-
powered foreign fleets, the decimation of the wood-hulled sailing fleet, and the positive
performance of steam vessels such as the warship Merrimac during the Civil War was soon to
convince the U.S. maritime industry to embrace steam power. However, by the time steam
power in the U.S. reached beyond inland and coastal waterways, the advantages of coal as fuel
had been well established.

3. The Golden Age of the United States Merchant Marine

Although this era of innovation and invention for the maritime industry would start the
downward spiral of the U.S. Merchant Marine, the ultimate effects would not be felt until the end
of the U.S. Civil War. In the meantime, the decades between 1830 and the start of the Civil War
in 1861 proved to be the golden age of shipping for the U.S. maritime industry.
This period saw a prolonged interval of international peace. Warm relations between
nations allowed for the opening of new markets and economic opportunities. While the marine

14
industries of Britain and Europe were continuing to develop the steam engine for maritime use,
the United States filled in the gap with advancements of their own. To meet the increasing needs
of international trade U.S. ship designers did away with the slow, bulky European-influenced
freighters of the past opting for the larger and faster packet and clipper ships of their own
designs.

Figure 2: Ann McKim, the first American clipper ship (Butler 1997, p.48).

By shedding the outdated designs of the past, the U.S. Merchant Marine became the
dominant fleet on the world’s oceans. In twenty years spanning 1836 and 1856, the number and
capacity of the packet ships increased along with the volume of trade. Capacity of the packets
doubled from 500 tons to 1,000 tons while the total number of packet ships increased from
thirty-six to fifty-six (Gibson 2000, p.46).
The British government, in the meantime, had been supplying a modest subsidy to support
those shipbuilding companies willing to take the initiative in the development of the steam
engine for marine use. Interestingly, it was the commercial application of the steam engine and
not the military application in which the government was initially interested. Despite the rather
obvious advantages of steam power over sail, the Royal Navy had established military
dominance of the world’s oceans while under wind power and was reluctant to risk its hard won
gains on an unproven technology. Thus, in Britain, as it would later be in the United States, the
drive toward steam power was dominated not by military need or spurred by government
subsidies. Rather market and industry considerations, and simple economics would ultimately
impel the changeover.

15
 Despite the valiant effort of the country’s shipbuilding industry, the golden age of the
United States Merchant Marine was short lived. U.S. shipbuilders’ continuing perfection of
faster and larger sailing ship designs kept the nation’s merchant marine on top during the
decades leading up to the U.S. Civil War. However, the switch from sail to steam was
inevitable. The sleek, beautiful clipper ships and packets were timeless in their own way but
their continued production for commercial use in the United States proved to be little more than
an exercise in futility. Britain’s maritime industry quickly took advantage of its head start in
developing steam propulsion. By 1855, the British were experimenting successfully with large
iron steamships and, by 1860, British and European steamships were in such high demand that
the tonnage of wooden sail vessels produced by U.S. shipyards had dropped to less than half as
compared to five years earlier (Bankers Trust of New York 1920, p.15).

16
B. THE EARLY WORLD FUEL MARKET

1. The Civil War and the U.S. Industrial Revolution

Like Great Britain prior to the nineteenth century, the pre-Civil War United States utilized
chiefly water power for its major industrial works, restricting industrialization to areas around
rivers and other bodies of water. After the technology of steam power began to creep its way
across the Atlantic around 1850, U.S. industries began using steam power and other technologies
in manufacturing applications. In 1855, U.S. Nautical Magazine and Naval Journal stated
shipyards found that “at least two-thirds of the drudgery of axe, adz, maul, and plane, may be
performed better and cheaper by steam” (Thiesen 2006, p.68). This was true throughout the
manufacturing industries.
When the Civil War broke out, many of the industries involved in wartime production
adopted steam power to push production limits and keep up with wartime demand. In both
civilian and government shipyards during the war, sawing and lifting devices that had once relied
on human, animal, or waterpower were replaced by steam powered machinery (ibid., p.74).
Unlike waterpower, steam power could be used in any season, including areas of the north where
rivers would freeze in winter, blocking water wheels and cutting off the source of power for
industrial machinery.
The growth of steam power during the war sowed the seeds for the United States Industrial
Revolution, introducing industries to technology that would be seen as indispensable once the
war ended. The Civil War and its aftermath thus introduced the United States to a historically
familiar trend that would be repeated throughout U.S. history—that of innovation resulting from
war-driven technology. Steam powered technologies in industrial applications improved
production and made overall operations more efficient. Nowhere was this more relevant than in
the marine industry, particularly in shipbuilding. “By 1880, yards would exist that used steam
power in almost every facet of the processing of timber… This mechanization cut expenses,
particularly labor costs” (ibid., p.73).
The need for steam in U.S. manufacturing was growing. Consequently, so was the hunger
for fuel. As noted earlier, the relatively few steamships that were used in inland and coastal
trade prior to the Civil War were already driving up costs of wood and causing concern regarding

17
the future fuel supply. The Civil War exacerbated this situation by depleting the supplies of
wood that was used as both fuel and shipbuilding material.
During this time, a Swedish marine engineer named John Ericsson developed the design for
the ironclad vessel Monitor, the predecessor of the iron and steel warships that would follow.
This new class of warship utilized steam power for its propulsion as well as screw propulsion,
which Ericsson also introduced to the U.S. earlier in the nineteenth century (ibid., pp.125-127).
As with other technologies during the Industrial Revolution in Britain and Europe, ironclad
vessels and steam power were not novel ideas of the time. However, the introduction of the two
during this opportune time in history set the stage for the modern naval war machine and
merchant marine.
Prior to the Civil War and the growth in popularity of the steamship, the U.S. built the best
merchant vessels in the world (Gibson 2000, p.74). However, one of the effects of the war was
that much of the U.S. shipbuilding requirements had to be shifted overseas in order to keep up
with the wartime demand for merchant and naval vessels. The added benefit of this shift was
that a number of foreign-flagged ships remained under a neutral flag and were thus able to avoid
attack.
As a result, the U.S. flagged merchant marine was in ruins following the Civil War. Both
the Union and Confederate fleets of naval and merchant vessels had been devastated by the war
and many of the ships that remained were foreign-flagged vessels built in Britain and Europe and
re-flagged former U.S. vessels. If there was to be a competitive U.S. merchant marine,
rebuilding and re-equipping was essential. However, rather than purchasing new but outdated
U.S. built wooden sailing vessels, marine industry leaders found the foreign built steam and iron
ships more attractive. To remain viable, the U.S. maritime industry now had to catch up to the
rest of the world and embrace the fossil fuel-powered and steam-driven technology of the iron
ship.
The nation’s attention in the years following the Civil War turned inward as it attempted to
heal the deep wounds created during the war as well as explore the vast country opening to the
west. Rebuilding the war-torn nation required the greatest efforts of a fully industrialized
economy. In 1865, the majority of industries in the country were still utilizing waterpower,
thereby limiting how far industry could spread. Twenty-five years later, in 1890, approximately
seventy percent of U.S. industry was steam powered (Armstrong 2003, p.168). The second

18
phase of the Industrial Revolution (sometimes referred to as the Second Industrial Revolution)
was now in full swing and the U.S. was leading the way. Coal-fed steam power was being used
(or would soon be used) in every major manufacturing sector of the United States. The nation
was joining the rest of the industrialized world in progressing toward fossil fuel dependency.
Though the adoption of the technology was slow, the U.S. Merchant Marine was likewise
turning to steam—much like its counterparts across the Atlantic Ocean had done in the previous
decades. The United States Government supported these advancements by legislation such as
the Ocean Mail Act of 1891 that allowed for subsidization of the merchant marine. In particular,
the subsidies were intended for companies building vessels that utilized new steam-powered
propulsion technology. While there would be many future subsidies for the Merchant Marine,
the Ocean Mail Act’s funding of new propulsion technology set a precedent that would not
frequently be repeated in the nation’s history (Gibson 2000, p.84). Rather, the majority of future
subsidies would be directed at the shipbuilding sector of the industry and largely ignored
advances in propulsion technology.
Approaching the close of the Industrial Revolution in the early decades of the twentieth
century, the U.S. Merchant Marine had not yet recovered from the loss of the majority of its
international fleet to foreign shipping. The U.S. Navy, however, was a different story. Driven
by imperialism and encouraged by the likes of Alfred Thayer Mahan, the United States
embarked on a quest to become a maritime sea power. Unlike the Merchant Marine, which was
restricted by limited funding and a somewhat myopic view of the marine industry and the world,
the country’s military leadership saw the strategic potential held by new technologies. The
United States built a powerful navy capable of sustained sea battles and blockades overseas,
driven by steam engines and fueled by coal.
Feeding the ravenous fires of a world sea power required massive amounts of coal. Such
was the need for fuel that “Great Britain, having great coal resources at home and a global
empire, had established a worldwide network of coal-bunkering stations that serviced much of
the world’s shipping” (ibid., p.114). Beginning in the late nineteenth century, the U.S. Navy
would take similar steps by exercising the nation’s “right of manifest destiny” over strategic
islands and locations in the Pacific Ocean for use as fueling stations. However, an important
development in marine fuel would soon change the face of the Navy and the entire marine
industry.

19
 2. New Shipbuilding and Technology in World War I

Early in the twentieth century, the world was preparing for war. During conflicts such as
the Spanish-American War two decades earlier, the U.S. learned about the necessity of a suitable
merchant fleet for support of a naval war effort. As a result, President Woodrow Wilson and
Treasury Secretary William McAdoo introduced the Navy and Shipbuilding Acts of 1916. In the
years leading up to the U.S. entering World War I in April 1917, the country’s maritime industry
began a massive period of shipbuilding that would bolster the Navy and rebuild the United States
Merchant Marine into a modern fleet (ibid., pp.106-110).
Over the course of the Industrial Revolution and the span of one hundred years, coal had
become the predominant fuel that powered the steam engine and the world’s merchant fleets.
During the period at the beginning of the twentieth century, sea-borne trade was flourishing and
enormous passenger ships such as Mauritania, Lusitania, and Titanic were plying the world’s
oceans powered by triple expansion steam engines using low-pressure (200 pounds per square
inch) steam produced by coal-fired Scotch-type boilers. This era also saw Charles Parson’s new
steam turbine begin to revolutionize marine propulsion, with its much higher power-to-
weight/volume ratio compared to the triple expansion steam engine.
In the prelude to World War I, the dominance of coal in the marine industry would be
destabilized by another revolution in the industry—crude oil. Like coal before it, crude oil was
not a new discovery. It had been used for centuries as fuel for lamps and for other purposes.
The problem was how to find it and access it. In 1859, the serendipitous Edwin Drake, while
searching for water, sunk a well 69.5 feet into the ground at Titusville, Pennsylvania and struck
oil (Secondary Energy Infobook 2004, p.34). Drake’s discovery was the first of its kind in the
world and fifty years later would usher in a new era that would revolutionize the maritime
industry.
Even before World War I broke out, Great Britain was the dominant supplier of coal to the
world’s merchant fleets. Coal had the advantage of relatively minimal shifting in comparison to
liquid fuel during rough seas and offered little danger of igniting and exploding if the vessel were
attacked. The United States however, did not want to be dependent on a commercial rival for its
fuel supply during wartime or after. Therefore, as the leading oil producing country at the time
the United States chose fuel oil-fired boilers for its new fleet of war vessels (Gibson 2000,
p.114). Although this decision would not have a great effect on the maritime world until after

20
World War I, it would very quickly alter the face of the industry and establish crude oil as the
fuel of the industrialized world for the next century.
Liquid fuel oil had many advantages over coal. Fuel oil’s higher volatility in comparison
to coal made it more dangerous to carry but also made it more efficient as a fuel for steam
production. As a liquid, it took up less space than coal and could be stored in a vessel’s double
bottom tanks, freeing up more space for cargo. If stored properly, it would have little effect on
the trim and stability of a vessel. It was also less labor intensive, requiring a smaller work force
in a ship’s engine room.
Once again, as in the initial development of steam power, a series of synchronistic
developments assisted in the application of fuel oil fired steam plants for marine propulsion.
Improvements upon Parson’s steam turbine increased efficiency by large steps as higher steam
pressures and temperatures could be used. Higher quality metals with greater corrosion and
fracture resistance enabled the production of high-pressure water tube boilers fired by fuel oil.
The resulting combination of higher pressure, higher temperature (superheated) steam allowed
for increased power with improved fuel efficiency (ibid., p.2).
Because of its performance for the U.S. Naval fleet in World War I and the numerous
advantages over coal-fired steam plants, fuel oil-fired vessels would see increased use in the U.S.
Merchant Marine, comprising nearly eighty percent of the new steel ship tonnage in 1920
(Bankers Trust Company 1920, p.94). By 1921, approximately sixty percent of the U.S.
merchant fleet was equipped with fuel oil fired equipment. By comparison, only fifteen percent
of the rest of the world’s merchant ships were so equipped (Kellogg 1921, p.277). Fuel oil
would eventually become the norm throughout the world maritime fleets and, for the time being,
the United States had the distinct advantage.

3. The Introduction of the Internal Combustion Engine

World War I also introduced the worldwide merchant marine to a power plant that would
revolutionize marine propulsion and capitalize on the benefits of liquid fuel oil. The internal
combustion engine had been developed by Rudolph Diesel in the last decade of the nineteenth
century (Hudson 2005, p.3). While the original design could incorporate the use of peanut oil as
fuel, petroleum-based fuel oil was found to be a more appropriate fuel due to its higher volatility.
The first marine diesel engine was installed on the vessel Selandia in 1911, and by 1913, the

21
earliest submarines were powered by these engines (Diesel Engines 1999, p.1). However, it
would take over three decades and another world war before the internal combustion engine
came into wide use in the marine industry.
With the signing of the Armistice in November 1918, ending World War I, the United
States had the world’s largest merchant fleet comprised of relatively new and sound vessels with
oil-fired steam plants (Gibson 2000, pp.165-169). New technology had been introduced during
the war that would set the precedent for the world naval and merchant fleets. Not only was fuel
oil soon to replace coal as the primary fuel for steam boilers, but the inefficient reciprocating
steam engine had given way to the geared steam turbine, the turbo electric plant, and now the
internal combustion engine—technology that would continue to be developed in the interim
between World Wars I and II.
The internal combustion engine, most notably the efficient diesel engine, came to the
attention of the Shipping Board during this time as being ideally suited to maritime service. Fuel
oil was now the primary fuel for the U.S. merchant fleet and the internal combustion engine
made efficient use of fuel oil’s volatility. By using the slow-speed variety of the diesel engine,
the need for elaborate speed reducing gears was virtually eliminated, further increasing the
efficiency of the plant. The diesel engine required less personnel to operate and used up less
space than the conventional steam turbine or reciprocating steam engine with its boiler and
ancillary tubes. What is more, the heavy construction of the internal engine offered an added
measure of safety by reducing the risk of shipboard explosion often encountered with steam
plants of the time (De la Pedraja 1994, p.361).
The Shipping Board was so intrigued by diesel engines that it converted twelve freighters
in 1924 to this type of propulsion as an experiment. It was the Board’s intent to convert the
entire U.S. Merchant Marine to diesel propulsion but was thwarted by steam engine interests.
“As a result manufacturers in the United States never acquired the facilities or the technology to
produce large numbers of diesel engines” (ibid., p.362).
It was during this period in the nation’s history that Fredric Kellogg wrote his appeal to the
Academy of Political Science asking that care be taken in the future regarding the U.S. Merchant
Marine’s fuel supply. Kellogg addressed the growing thirst for crude oil, recognizing that the
advantage obtained by the U.S. with the switch from coal to liquid fuel oil would be quickly lost
without an adequate supply—a supply that the U.S. could not provide from its own reserves. At

22
this time, the Middle East was at the center of a debate over “exploration and exploitation of [the
region] for petroleum purposes” between Great Britain and France on one side and the United
States on the other (Kellogg 1921, p.279).

We can only say that the problem in question remains unsettled, and that
the proper determination of the meaning of the term "mandate" as applied
not only to this territory but to other great areas of the earth's surface
within which petroleum may be contained, will substantially affect the
power of the American mercantile marine to continue to enjoy the
advantages derivable from petroleum as a fuel (ibid.).

In the marine industry, fuel oil was quickly replacing coal and new technologies were taking
advantage of the change. The world’s dependency on fossil fuel was just blossoming at this
point in world history, but it could already be seen how it would come to dictate and control
foreign policy.

4. World War II and the Advent of the Modern Merchant Marine

World War II erupted in Europe in 1939. Initially, the United States was officially neutral
and it would be another two years before the country formally entered the war. Nevertheless, the
U.S. was involved in the conflict from the very beginning. The massive U.S. Merchant
Marine—the largest in the world—supplied the Allied nations with the necessary supplies to
keep their war machines running.
So vital to the Allied effort was the U.S. Merchant Marine, that Germany soon began
targeting U.S. merchant vessels. In November of 1941, President Roosevelt and the U.S.
Congress removed the restrictions of the 1935 Neutrality Act allowing the arming of merchant
ships (Butler 1997, p.172). The U.S. would officially enter World War II soon after.
Like World War I twenty years before, shipyards in the United States increased their output
even prior to the outbreak of war, building up an immense fleet of ships for the war effort. By
the time the country declared war, it had a larger merchant fleet than prior to its entry into World
War I (Gibson 2000, pp.164-165).
Despite the advancements and technological achievements in internal combustion engines
witnessed during and after the First World War, the majority of U.S. naval and merchant vessels
would still utilize reciprocating steam engines and turbines throughout World War II. The

23
United States Maritime Commission wanted diesel engines installed in the vessels built for the
emergency shipbuilding program, but because of the initial blockage of diesel engines by steam
interests following World War I, the capabilities within the shipbuilding industry were simply
not there. Even after the war, the U.S. Merchant Marine remained content with geared steam
turbines and steam powered turbo-electric plants despite the fact that twenty-five percent of all
oceangoing ships around the world were already propelled by diesel engines (Butler 1997,
p.196).
As with the sluggish reaction during the switch from sail to steam, the U.S. maritime
industry was again slow to recognize the trend. U.S. steamship companies were reluctant to
adopt diesel engines as a means for propulsion as steam turbines were still cheaper to maintain.
Additionally, as long as fuel oil prices remained low, the increased efficiency and cost savings
offered by diesel engine propulsion seemed to be minimal. It would be another decade after the
end of the war before the U.S. Merchant Marine began to adopt the technology of the diesel
engine and yet another three decades after that before they were the norm for the industry (De la
Pedraja 1994, pp.361-362).
Nevertheless, World War II set the stage for the modern merchant marine. The United
States built up a massive maritime fleet. Along with vessels built afterward, many of the ships
built during the war would continue to ply the world’s waters long after hostilities ended,
eventually resulting in a glut of Liberty and Victory class ships and other vessels available for a
dwindling trade market. While these vessels were plentiful and seaworthy and their operating
personnel well qualified and seasoned (to say the least), their power plants were already outdated
by the internal combustion engine being used in many foreign-built vessels. Despite the best
efforts of the Shipping Board and the strong evidence in favor of diesel engine propulsion,
resistance from shipping companies, unions and steam engine interests blocked the adoption of
new, higher efficiency technologies.

In effect, the failure to adopt diesel engines was one more factor that
contributed to the decline of the U.S.-flag merchant marine. Not until the
energy crisis of 1973 did the already vastly reduced ranks of U.S.-flag
lines finally turn to diesel engines. There was so much resistance from
management, unions, and turbine manufacturers that only the high oil
prices could impose the diesels (ibid., p.362).

24
 5. The Nuclear Ship Savannah

Even before the United States Merchant Marine adopted the diesel engine as its primary
propulsion method, a revolutionary marine propulsion plant was introduced. The U.S. Navy
launched its first nuclear submarine, Nautilus in 1955. It was predicted by many during the
period that nuclear power would be the next step in the natural evolution of marine propulsion
(Adams 1995).
Later in the same year that Nautilus was launched, Admiral J. J. McMullen submitted a
report to the Maritime Administration that outlined what he thought to be the most important
considerations in the application of nuclear power to merchant vessels. Accurately forecasting
not only commercial nuclear power but also the marine industry in general, these considerations
included long trade route, quick turn around in port, large deadweight capacity, roundtrip
payload, and the advantage of smoke elimination (ibid., p.2).
Launched in Camden, New Jersey in July of 1959 and put into service in 1962, the N.S.
Savannah was only the world’s second nuclear-powered commercial ship. Despite the
reluctance of U.S. shipping companies to adopt new technologies to replace its aging and
obsolete steam plants, the Savannah was owned and operated by the U.S.-based States Marine
Line (De La Pedraja 1994, pp.531-533).

Figure 3: N.S. Savannah, circa 1962 (www.examiner.com).

25
 Instead of adhering to McMullen’s recommendations, the vessel was built almost strictly
for show, with its final design criteria laid out for aesthetics rather than function (Adams 1995).
Built as part of President Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” program, Savannah was intended to
show the country and the world that atomic power could be used to benefit humanity rather than
threaten it with nuclear annihilation. Instead of being a practical commercial vessel, however,
the N.S. Savannah was used as a demonstration vessel that traveled between U.S. ports.

Visiting ports of the world, it will demonstrate to people everywhere this

peacetime use of atomic energy, harnessed for the improvement of human
living. In part, the ship will be an atomic exhibit, carrying to all people
practical knowledge of the usefulness of this new science in medicine,
agriculture, and power production (Dwight D. Eisenhower, 25 April
1955).

It was hoped that the Savannah would usher in a new era of ocean transportation, much as
its namesake is credited with eventually doing for steam power. However, with a massive crew
of 110 personnel, a largely impractical layout, and the cumbersome size and weight of the
reactor, the vessel instead mirrored the initial commercial failure of its steam-powered
predecessor. Despite its initial funding and support of the nuclear merchant marine program, the
Eisenhower administration balked at the cost of the program and the long-term range of its goals.
It cut off funding for the program, effectively killing any hopes for a nuclear merchant marine in
the twentieth century (De La Pedraja 1994, pp.531-533).

26
II. MARITIME POLICY AND THE 20TH CENTURY OIL-BASED WORLD
ECONOMY

Black fuel's the master making rules,

Black fuel controls the world.
∼Channel Zero, Black Fuel

A. MARITIME POLICY AND ITS EFFECTS ON SHIPBUILDING AND TECHNOLOGY

1. The Effect of War on the Maritime Industry

As witnessed throughout history, technology tends to be developed and adopted faster

during periods of war than at any other time. With its close association to the military and the
needs of warfare, this is particularly true within the maritime industry. As the Civil War
destroyed the merchant and naval fleets of the country, the shipbuilding industry had to increase
its production in order to help maintain the sizes and strengths of the fleets. New approaches in
shipbuilding were explored, resulting in the ironclad warships of Ericsson’s design. New
technologies were used including steam powered manufacturing techniques that assisted in
production of the wooden ships of the time. These technologies were introduced many years
prior in Great Britain and Europe during the Industrial Revolution but it took the Civil War and
the increased demand on shipbuilding and the manufacture of war-related goods to encourage the
expansion of these technologies in the maritime industry in the United States.

A Navy Department survey indicated that by 1860 only two out of five of
the navy yards had converted from pit saws to steam-powered sawmills.
During the Civil War, however, steam-powered machinery all but
replaced sawing and lifting devices that had relied on animal, human, and
water power in urban civilian and government yards (Thiesen 2006, p.74).

This trend proved true for World Wars I and II, as well. Steam-powered vessels were
developed well before the twentieth century and were in widespread use in the coastal and inland
trades. Still, it would take the push of the First World War before the drive to complete the
replacement of sail-propelled merchant vessels with steamships measurably affected the United
States. The U.S. however, did take the insightful and ultimately progressive step of installing
fuel oil-fired boilers in its new wartime fleet.

27
 Another new propulsion innovation was introduced during World War I that would
eventually transform the industry—the internal combustion engine. Rudolph Diesel developed
his namesake engine in the nineteenth century, but it would be the mid-twentieth century before
it became widely used in the international marine industry.
In the 1930s and 1940s, many countries were experimenting with Diesel’s propulsion
engine technology. Generally, however, maritime propulsion technology was not strongly
affected by World War II. Many cargo vessels in the U.S. fleet were still utilizing the steam
plants developed during World War I—triple and quadruple expansion reciprocating steam
engines and steam turbines. The industrialization of shipbuilding however, took great leaps
forward with the innovations of industrialists such as Henry J. Kaiser. Kaiser revolutionized
shipbuilding with prefabricated modules that were constructed separately and then welded
together to form the hull of the ship (Gibson 2000, p.166).
The wars and conflicts that followed World Wars I and II likewise had their effect on the
United States’ maritime industry, though not necessarily in the same way. The Korean and
Vietnam conflicts reinforced how essential the U.S. Merchant Marine and sealift operations were
to the nation during times of war. At the same time, however, the wartime efforts of the
maritime industry uncovered serious shortcomings in the nation’s sealift capabilities. Better
loading/offloading capabilities were required and greatly improved by the development of the
first containership in 1956 by Malcolm McLean (Mercogliano, p.192).
Like the Korean and Vietnam conflicts before them, Operations Desert Shield and Iraqi
Freedom and operations in Afghanistan did not see many technological breakthroughs in the
maritime industry. However, the last half of the twentieth century saw the merchant marine
retain its importance in military action as the face of warfare changed. As armies became more
mechanized and their firepower grew, the need for supply transfer increased. Conflicts erupted
in areas around the globe and militaries became far more mobile, requiring the transportation
capabilities unique to the maritime industry.
All of the technical, mechanical, manufacturing, and logistical innovations developed and
perfected as a result of conflicts and wars further drove the world into its dependency on fossil
fuel. As the demand increased for manufactured goods required for rebuilding the war-torn
countries following World Wars I and II, globalization allowed for the sharing of technological
developments from around the world much faster than occurred previously. The U.S. and world

28
merchant fleets supplied the vehicles for the spread of these new developments. Likewise, as
warfare changed, the maritime industry continued to be important in military operations. After a
century of wars and conflicts, the maritime industry continues to be the essential supply lines that
fed industry, warfare, and commercial needs.

In addition to commercial functions, U.S.-flag ships and the connecting

intermodal systems play an integral but often unheralded role in bringing
critical supplies to military missions across the globe. The Nation’s sealift
assets, strategic ports, and supporting infrastructure are integral links in
the defense-logistics chain, and the projection of American power
(Maritime Administration 2007, p.1).

Technological advancements in propulsion and new production techniques would carry

over and continue to be used in the commercial sector once wars and conflicts ceased. New
power plants and other developments were introduced and adopted, albeit slowly, and they
became the industry standards on which to build for the future. Energy requirements intensified
as manufacturing and production increased and improved. The world’s merchant fleet grew
along with the needs of the evolving global economy. As the fleets and vessels grew in size to
fulfill the demands of industry and the commercial sector, so did the fuel requirements needed to
keep the vessels underway. As a result, the merchant fleets of the world likewise became major
consumers of fuel oil. The supply of fossil fuel needed to increase to fill the marine industry’s
demand.

2. Merchant Marine Policy and Legislation

Government legislation and marine policy are responsible for much of the incentive behind
the advancement of new technologies in the global maritime industry both during war as well as
during times of peace. In the mid-nineteenth century, as steam-powered vessels vied with sail
for dominance of the seas, the United States did not have the realized natural resources or the
expertise to utilize the steam engine to its full potential. Nor, as a result, could the U.S. compete
with the countries that did. The U.S. marine industry did, however, see the potential of steam
propulsion and put it to good use on the Great Lakes and inland waterways where it was more
practical. However, the government did not subsidize the advancement of steam propulsion to
the extent that the governments of other countries did, including Britain.

29
 While American shipbuilders were making great refinements on existing designs, new
technology was quickly rendering these improvements obsolete. As a result, “the U.S. maritime
industry stuck to what it did best, building and operating wooden sailing ships, and for several
more decades the traditional materials and crafts held their own” (Gibson 2000, p.49). The U.S.
built the best wooden sailing vessels in the world at that time and dominated world shipbuilding
by producing fast, sleek, and beautiful clipper ships and packets. These designs did provide a
level of competition for a short period, until steam-powered technologies became better proven
and perfected. Without an eye to the future, however, the U.S. Merchant Marine would soon
find it difficult to compete with the steam-propelled iron and steel fleets produced by other
countries. Foreign governments such as Great Britain were providing modest, but supportive
state funds to shipping companies that were willing to take the lead in operating steam-powered,
oceangoing ships. It soon became obvious that the age of sail was markedly drawing to a close.
A shift to a new technology, especially one as revolutionary as the shift from sail to steam
propulsion, requires a heavy financial investment. Following the precedent set by the British
Parliament in the 1830s, the United States Congress began offering subsidies to shipping
companies in the form of mail contracts in March of 1845, decades later than contemporary
policies in Britain and Europe (ibid., pp.46-52). These early subsidies offered the incentive
companies needed to invest in new developments such as steam power.
More often than not, however, the focus of U.S. Government policy has been on the
shipbuilding industry rather than on the entire marine industry, the assumption being that the two
were so closely intertwined that a benefit for one would be of direct benefit to the other.

From the beginning, government support for a merchant marine was in

one way or another tied to the well being of American shipyards.
Provisions in the Merchant Marine Acts of l920 and l936 tightly bound the
two groups together, i.e., support for one was tied to support for the other
(Whitehurst 1998, p.15).

What resulted instead was a system of subsidies that benefited the manufacturing sector of the
marine industry and helped promote new and improved manufacturing techniques, but did little
to encourage the application of new technological advancements on board the ships themselves.
In fact, with the exception of the decision to use fuel oil instead of coal in its World War I
wartime fleet, these shipyard-focused subsidies actually hurt the United States Merchant Marine

30
when it came to new technologies. By World War II, the U.S. was able to produce more ships
faster than any other country, owning sixty percent of the world’s ocean going tonnage by 1945
(Gibson 2000, p.169). This was due in no small part to subsidies provided by Congress for the
wartime effort. Outside of the United States, however, the internal combustion engine already
powered twenty-five percent of the world’s maritime fleet. By contrast, the vast majority of the
U.S. fleet still utilized steam turbines, turboelectric power plants, and even the triple-expansion
steam engines developed during World War I (Butler 1997, p.196). The government subsidy
program resulted in revolutionary changes in ship production techniques, but overlooked
potential areas of advancement within the ships themselves. As it did at the dawn of steam
propulsion, the U.S. maritime industry once again failed to see the trend in propulsion
technology. It would take until the decades of the 1970s and 1980s before such technology
would become as common in the U.S. Merchant Marine as it was worldwide. Thus, it had
become matter-of-course for the U.S. Merchant Marine to ignore technological advancements in
favor of tried and true concepts that would soon be obsolete. C. Bradford Mitchell posits in an
article written for American Heritage Magazine in 1967 that,

Somewhere along the way we lost the knack, or the will, to follow through
on our technical and commercial initiatives. At some point the native
ingenuity and enterprise that had made us a leading seafaring nation were
infected with a subtle infirmity of purpose. Thus we were able—with the
Savannah in 1819—to give the world steam power at sea but were unable
to grasp the benefits of that epoch-making innovation; able to perceive the
cost of supplying our country’s shipping needs but too irresolute to pay
that cost. Looking back over the past 150 years, we can see this strangely
uncharacteristic American trait at work misshaping our maritime destiny
(Mitchell 1967, p.2).

31
B. FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENCY IN THE POST-WAR WORLD ECONOMY

1. The New Global Fuel Market

The modern merchant marine had been unveiled in the aftermath of World War II and new
technological advancements assisted in industrializing the entire world. Without promising
alternatives, the human race was spiraling further into its oil addiction. World War II saw the
increased development of the petroleum based world economy with the introduction of the first
dedicated oil tanker, the T-2. This vessel was one of the first of its kind, designed “for the
strategic deployment of petroleum distribution to meet the energy needs of the Allies” (Spyrou
2006, p.3). More importantly, it was the first step in the development of an immense system of
supply lines for the transportation of crude oil across the industrialized world that has formed the
foundation of the modern global economy.

700

600
Deadweight Tonnage (x1000)

500 500

450

400
380

300 300

230

200
150
140

100 85
100

45 50
29 35

0
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Year

Figure 4: Growth of the crude oil tanker (adapted from Spyrou 2006, p.27).

The merchant marine was pivotal to the oil industry during the post-World War II years, as
crude oil transport became a core business for the oil companies and shipping-dominated oil
industry economics. In 1938, the world crude oil tanker fleet was approximately 16.6 million
tons. That number had increased to 27.6 million deadweight tons by 1950, the largest portion of
which belonged to the United States (ibid., pp.19-35). In the decades that followed, the crude oil
tankers and size of the world fleet increased as demand for crude oil skyrocketed (Figures 4 and
5). The T-2 tanker of about 17,000 deadweight tons would grow into today’s massive Very

32
Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) and Ultra Large Crude Carriers (ULCCs) carrying in excess of
500,000 deadweight tons (ibid.).

Figure 5: World crude oil consumption (Westwood 2007, Energy—The Big

Picture, p.5).

Worldwide, trade in crude oil increased an average of 8.4 percent annually in the twenty
years spanning the 1950s and 1960s as compared to an annual average of 5.9 percent in the three
decades prior (Stopford 1997, p.304). Since that time, as illustrated in Figure 6, global
consumption has continued to increase from approximately thirty million barrels to almost eighty
million barrels per day at the start of the twenty-first century (Westwood 2007, Energy—The Big
Picture, p.5).

Figure 6: World petroleum consumption comparison (Westwood 2007, p. 5).

33
 Crude oil consumption was increasing worldwide and the United States likewise became a
huge consumer. As evidenced by Figures 5 and 6, North America is currently the world’s largest
individual crude oil consumer (with Southeast Asia now close behind) and has been for at least
fifty years. While U.S. consumption continues to increase, overall usage has somewhat leveled
off since the late 1970s and early 1980s. Although mainly due to the spike in the cost of crude
oil caused by the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries (OPEC) Oil Embargo of the mid-1970s,
this leveling off is due in part to increased environmental awareness as well as increased
efficiency and stricter emissions guidelines.
More significant than its overall crude oil consumption, the United States had become a
major importer of petroleum. By comparison, when the country chose to burn fuel oil in its
warships during World War I, it had been the leading producer of crude oil in the world.
Through the remainder of the twentieth century, with an ever-increasing population and demand
for consumer goods, the country’s thirst for oil quickly surpassed its own capability to provide it.
Referring to the data in Figure 7, in 1950, the U.S. was consuming approximately 2.3 billion
barrels of oil per year, the vast majority of which it provided for itself. Moreover, until the late
1970s, the U.S. provided over half of its own fuel oil requirements. By the mid-90s, however,
the country was consuming approximately 7.5 billion barrels of oil annually and imports
accounted for the majority of the crude oil consumed by the United States.

Figure 7: U.S. oil production vs. U.S. oil imports (Clean MPG, LLC 2008).

34
 The difference between the imported supplies of crude oil versus the domestic supply
highlights the importance and political significance of fossil fuel dependence, not just for the
United States, but also for any industrialized country. When a country becomes dependent on an
energy source that it cannot entirely supply itself, its own economic survival becomes uncertain
and political relationships create imperatives.
These points were well illustrated during the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 and subsequent
disruptions in the world oil supply, such as the Iranian Revolution, the Iran/Iraq war, and the
Persian Gulf wars. Each successive disruption increased in severity as production increased to
keep up with the increasing demand (Hakes 2000, p.1). During each severe disruption,

The net impact on world economic growth is negative. Increased oil

prices reduce national income because spending on oil rises, and there is
less available to spend on other goods and services. Not surprisingly, the
larger the oil price increase and the longer higher prices are sustained,
the more severe is the macroeconomic impact (Hirsch 2005, p.28).

2. Increasing Population and Supporting Industries

An important key closely tied to the enormous increase in fossil fuel demand is the
population explosion the world has experienced since the Second World War. The world
population doubled between the end of the war and the early 1990s and continues to climb
(Westwood 2007, Energy—The Big Picture, p.3). Accompanying the population boom is an
ever-increasing demand for petroleum and related products. Petroleum is used for production of
virtually every consumer product as well as an important source of feedstock for the chemical
industry. More importantly, the energy required to support increasing population and the
accompanying demand for consumer goods increases dramatically. Currently, the primary
source of this energy is fossil fuel.
Energy production includes not only what is needed for the daily electrical consumption by
that population but the energy required to transport the manufactured goods to and from
commercial outlets and manufacturing facilities to keep up with the various tastes, needs, and
demands. The fuel itself must be transported between production and distribution stations to, in
turn, be used to produce energy. As seen in Figure 8, when a nation’s demand for energy
explodes with its population, fuel production must increase accordingly to meet that demand.

35
 Figure 8: World population and oil production (Westwood 2007, Energy—
The Big Picture, p.3).

More than a century and-a-half has passed since the Industrial Revolution began in Europe.
As the world’s population exploded, the corresponding demand for natural and manufactured
resources has soared. Likewise, the need for energy to fuel manufacturing and transportation has
grown exponentially. As the primary energy source for industry, fossil fuel demand is projected
to continue to increase through the current century. Eventually, the increasing demand for fossil
fuel is predicted to surpass the planet’s ability to provide it (Hirsch 2005, p.8). As a large
consumer and the major supplier of fossil fuel to the world, the world merchant fleets have
played and will continue play a major role in the source and supply of energy.

36
III. THE NEW INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

Go tell the engine room,

“Stop stokin’ up the fire!”
We're out of fuel.
∼Catatonia, Fuel

A. THE IMPACT OF FOSSIL FUEL

We are approaching the sunset of the oil era in the first half of the 21st
century. The price of oil on global markets continues to climb and peak
global oil is within sight in the coming decades. At the same time, the
dramatic rise in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels
is raising the earth’s temperature and threatening an unprecedented
change in the chemistry of the planet and global climate, with ominous
consequences for the future of human civilization and the ecosystems of
the earth (Rifkin 2007, p. 1).

1. The Environmental Consequences of the Fossil Fuel Addiction

In 1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published his paper, On the Influence of
Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground. In it, he postulated that the
increased carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuel
would lead to increased temperatures, an idea that has since come to be known as the
“greenhouse effect” (Brasseur 2003, p.4).
Arrhenius’ theories were largely ignored for almost seventy-five years. It was not until the
late twentieth century and the beginning of the environmental movement that the human race
began to realize the toll that manufacturing was taking on the Earth. In the landmark book Limits
to Growth, written in 1972, authors Meadows, et al. predicted that without a conscious effort of
the world’s populace, continued use and abuse of the planet’s resources will have drastic effects.
As summarized by Eduard Pestel in the abstract to his synopsis of Limits to Growth,

If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization,

pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged,
the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the
next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden
and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity
(Pestel 1972, p.1).

37
 Still, the true effect of heavy industry on the environment is a point of contention between
experts on both sides of the issue. The consequences of oil spills, toxic waste, etc. are
undeniable but the less conspicuous, though potentially more harmful and longer lasting effects
of the heavy industries are still being debated. Nevertheless, a growing body of evidence
suggests that the increasing demand for energy, particularly fossil fuel, is resulting in a gradual
but irrefutable warming of Earth’s atmosphere. Records indicate that the surface temperature of
the planet has increased by approximately 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.7 degrees Centigrade) since
early in the twentieth century (National Academy of Sciences 2006, p.2).

Figure 9: Global temperature rise (National Academy of Sciences 2006, p.4).

As Arrhenius predicted in the late nineteenth century, the global temperature rise appears to
parallel the increased carbon output of heavy industries. A direct correlation between the carbon
output of manufacturing, the amount of carbon and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting
from that manufacturing, and global warming would indicate that, as the former continues to
increase, so will the latter. If left unchecked, the consequences of the increasing temperature
could be dire.
The results of the multitude of studies that point to global warming as an actual physical
occurrence are, at the very least, arguable. Much of the data used to compare modern day
climate and atmospheric conditions to those of hundreds or even thousands of years ago are
extrapolated from current research and cannot be verified as there are little or no data available

38
extending that far back into Earth’s history. As hotly debated as this issue may be, many
industries consider the resulting changes in policy and legislation stemming from global
warming as inevitable.

2. The Environmental Impact of the Marine Industry

Since the Industrial Revolution 150 years ago, it has been taken for
granted that the environment has an infinite capacity to absorb the waste
generated by man’s industry. Any concern for the environment’s safety or
consequences of the unrestrained consumption of finite fossil fuel has been
expressed until comparatively recently only by a minority (Spyrou 2006,
p.96).

As the marine industry grows to provide the necessary transportation for goods, resources,
and military needs, the demand for fossil fuel within the maritime industry and the transportation
sector likewise increases. As noted in Figure 10, petroleum consumption by the transportation
industry currently totals almost seventy percent of the world’s petroleum usage (Intermediate
Energy Infobook 2007, p19). Within the U.S., transportation alone consumes fourteen million
barrels of oil per day, with consumption expected to increase to twenty million barrels daily by
the year 2030, as seen in Figure 11 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2007).

Figure 10: Current petroleum use by sector (Intermediate Energy

Infobook 2007, p19).

39
 Figure 11: Crude oil consumption in the U.S. transportation industry (U.S.
Department of Energy, 2007).

Similarly, as illustrated in Figure 12 below, by the end of the twenty-first century, overall
energy use within the worldwide transportation sector, to include petroleum, is projected to
triple, meaning the transportation industry will account for approximately thirty percent of the
overall demand (Geffen 2003, p.11, and International Maritime Organization 2005, p.3).

Figure 12: Projected energy use through 2095 (Geffen 2003, p.11).

40
 With such a projected increase of energy use and demand, the threat posed to the
environment also increases. Since the 1960s, the worlds biggest oil spills (those totaling thirty
thousand tons or greater) have dumped over two million tons of crude oil into the world’s
oceans, destroying habitats and adversely affecting nearby wildlife ecosystems for decades
afterward (Spyrou 2006, p.75 and Cleveland 2008). Increased traffic and increased carrying
capacities will also increase the threat of accidents that may lead to oil spills.
As devastating as oil spills are, they are only the most obvious damage that the marine
industry has inflicted on Earth’s ecosystem. According to recent studies in the United States and
the European Union, marine vessels account for more pollution than cars and trucks combined,
spewing almost twenty-seven percent of the world’s nitrogen oxide emissions into the
atmosphere. At current rates, the sulfur-dioxide output of marine engines will surpass all of the
land-based emissions by the year 2030 (Stanley 2007, pp.1-2). In 2007, experts linked nitrogen
oxide, sulfur dioxide, and other pollutants contained in vessel emissions to an estimated sixty
thousand cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths worldwide. With the projected emissions
increasing as expected, illustrated in Figure 13, that number could increase as much as forty
percent by the year 2012 (Corbett 2007, p.1).

Figure 13: Projected emissions, marine vs. stationary power plants (Stanley
2007, p.2).

41
 A number of factors contribute to the toxic emissions from various marine vessels. Figure
14 shows the various emissions from different types of marine vessels as a factor of plant size,
transit speed, etc. The majority of marine vessels powered by diesel engines and steam turbine
plants burn residual fuel oil, also known as heavy fuel oil, or “Bunker C.” Residual fuel oil is
essentially the thick, viscous fluid leftover from the refining process of petroleum that results in
marine gas oil (MGO) and other lighter grades of fuel oil. Among the various grades of fuel oil,
Bunker C is the least pure, containing as much as 4.5 percent sulfur, 0.15 percent ash, and 22
percent carbon residue by mass, as well as vanadium, aluminum, and other particulate matter.
By comparison, distillate fuel oil contains less than 2 percent sulfur (and as low as 0.2 percent as
required by European Union standards), 0.05 percent ash, and 2.5 percent carbon residue along
with lower levels of vanadium and aluminum (International Organization for Standardization
2005, pp.5-6). As a result, Bunker C is the cheapest grade of fuel oil that still delivers a
sufficient amount of energy when burned, making it the preferred fuel for the industry. A
company can save millions of dollars per year in fuel costs by using heavy fuel oil instead of
distillate fuel, even taking into consideration the increased maintenance costs associated with
Bunker C (see Appendix, Notes and Calculations).

Figure 14: Emissions from selected marine vessels (Adamson 2005, p.3).

There are inherent efficiency losses in any mechanical system. A system’s efficiency is
further decreased when it is run at less than optimal speeds and loads. The inefficient operation
of diesel engines lead to an increased amount of the impurities contained in heavy fuel oil ending
up in the emissions emanating from the stacks of marine vessels. This is particularly apparent

42
when considering diesel engines used to drive electrical generators aboard ships while they are
shoreside. Diesel engines run at their highest efficiency while approaching their maximum
continuous rating. Ship service generators on vessels that are pierside are normally not heavily
loaded resulting in poor fuel combustion and an increased amount of unburned fuel, particulate
matter, and toxic emissions passing into the atmosphere (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Emissions by source for container ports (Korn 2006. p.5).

3. Fossil Fuel Supply, Renewable Energies, and Alternative Fuels

In the coming decades the world’s population will continue to grow, as will its demand on
resources and energy. To stem the amount of carbon, carbon dioxide, and other harmful
products released into Earth’s atmosphere, renewable energies and alternative fuels must be
considered. Recent studies indicate that the current amount of carbon in the atmosphere is
approximately 380 parts per million. At the current rate of energy consumption, the atmospheric
content will rise to 740 parts per million by the end of the twenty-first century, as seen in Figure
16 (Edmonds 2007, p.125).
One possible solution to reducing the amount of carbon released to the atmosphere is to
decrease the total amount of energy being used for heavy industries, including the marine
industry. With calculated population levels expected to rise and the continued industrialization
of the world, this seems impossible. Alternately, the amount of energy produced using fossil fuel
must be reduced in combination with the expanded use of non-fossil fuel energy sources. The
Global Energy Technology Strategy Program, in Addressing Climate Change predicts that by
substituting alternative energy sources such as nuclear and biomass energies, the world’s energy
demand can be satisfied (ibid.).

43
 Figure 16: Predicted carbon output based on current energy demand
(Edmonds 2007, p.125).

As indicated in Figure 17, by beginning alternative energy programs now, a reasonable

atmospheric carbon content of 550 parts per million can be achieved by the year 2100. However,
depending on how aggressive the program implemented, the atmospheric carbon level could
peak at a level between 450 and 750 parts per million by the turn of the next century before
drastically declining over the course of the following two hundred years (ibid., p.8).

Figure 17: Predicted global carbon emissions (Edmonds 2007).

44
 Figure 18: Predicted carbon output utilizing different fuel/energy sources
(Edmonds 2007).

Figures 17 and 18 demonstrate how the energy needs of the world can be met by using
alternative energy sources to compensate for the diminished use of fossil fuel. By utilizing such
alternatives as nuclear, biomass, carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), and end-use
technologies (battery-powered vehicles, solar energy in homes and buildings, etc.), the energy
needs of the future can be met while maintaining carbon emissions at a constant 550 ppm (ibid.
p. 125).
In the meantime, however, humankind is continuing its consumption of fossil fuel. It is
predicted that world fossil fuel production will peak early in the twenty-first century. Ostensibly,
the human race’s penchant for energy will soon outgrow the planet’s ability to supply fossil fuel
to fill that demand. Figure 19 illustrates that, at the current rate of energy consumption,
business-as-usual (BAU) energy demand will surpass the capability and availability of fossil fuel
around the year 2015 (Westwood 2007, Energy--The Big Picture, p.7). Not only will alternative
energies be necessary to mitigate fossil fuel’s damage to the environment, but they may also be
required just to accommodate the world’s energy demands within the next one hundred years.

The earth’s endowment of oil is finite and demand for oil continues to
increase with time. Accordingly, geologists know that at some future date,

45
 conventional oil supply will no longer be capable of satisfying world
demand. At that point world conventional oil production will have peaked
and begin to decline (Hirsch 2005, p.8).

Figure 19: Global oil production forecast (Westwood 2007, Energy--The

Big Picture, p.7).

The potential danger represented by the forecasted deficit of fossil fuel and the irreparable
damage apparently caused by its use over the past two centuries has resulted in a revolution in
industries around the world. Biofuels, nuclear and wind energy, solar power, fuel cells, and
other renewable energies are becoming the focus of the “New Industrial Revolution.” The
purpose of which is to make further progress and advancements in technology and
industrialization, while at the same time attempting to repair some of the damage that humankind
has inflicted on the environment as a result of the technologies stemming from the first Industrial
Revolution.

The most important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no
longer the satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but
the reparation of the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday
(Gabor 1970, p.9).

46
 Companies and governments around the world are making great strides in the fields of
alternative energy. It is therefore possible that the problem will be solved before the danger
presents itself. This does not remove the burden of responsibility, however. “We no longer have
to worry about the exhaustion of this or that resource; technology will find substitutes. But we
do have to attend to the serious, progressive and possible irremediable damage we are inflicting
on the environment” (Landes 1998, p.516).

47
B. THE NEW INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND THE MARITIME INDUSTRY

1. Environmental Policy and How it Affects the Marine Industry

Over the course of four decades since the first land-focused emissions standards were
implemented, emissions from shore-based industries and highways have decreased dramatically,
even though industrialization has increased worldwide along with population. Marine emissions
however, because of low environmental standards, have increased with the demand for goods
and resources to feed the growing world economy.
Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, emission standards have continuously become more
stringent for land-based industries and motor vehicles. As an example, the first legislation to
curb auto emissions in the United States came with the Motor Vehicle Pollution Act in 1965,
followed by the Clean Air Act in 1970 that also covered land-based industries (Leidig 2007, p.1-
2). Similar legislation was passed in Europe that same year (McCabe, p.1). Standards for the
marine industry in the meantime have stayed disproportionately low, almost to the point of being
nonexistent.
The International Maritime Organization, as the governing body that exercises perhaps the
widest reaching influence on the marine industry, passed the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (known as MARPOL) in 1973 (Fraser, et al. 2004, p.5). This
is the governing maritime legislation that covers all aspects of marine pollution. However, when
MARPOL was initially drafted, the main environmental concern regarding the marine industry
was oil spills. An additional quarter century would pass until the adoption of MARPOL Annex
VI: Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships in 2004 and a conscious effort would be made to
regulate the emissions from marine vessels. MARPOL Annex VI, though initially presented in
1997, would not be adopted until seven years later, and would not enter into force until 19 May
2005 (Helsinki Commission 2005, p.2).
As world demand for a cleaner environment and increased pollution standards grows, ever
louder, world-governing bodies such as the IMO gain more authority and become more able to
pressure individual countries and companies into accepting environmental legislation. Its
MARPOL Annex VI: Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships was adopted by
the majority of IMO member countries in May of 2004. Annex VI covers marine emissions and
regulates the levels of various contaminants in vessel exhaust (Fournier 2006). This legislation

48
has now been ratified by thirty nations representing approximately sixty-three percent of the
world’s shipping. As of April 2009, the United States has signed the Protocol, but is the only
country among one hundred thirty-six IMO member nations that has yet to ratify the legislation
(ibid., p.44). Legislation applying to the marine industry has historically been applicable at the
discretion of the various ports and countries of registry with which each vessel or shipping
company dealt. Since its formation in 1958, the IMO presented regulations to the industry that
were more suggestions than rules for any nation that was not a member or had not ratified a
particular piece of legislation. As a result, from a pollution control perspective, the marine
industry has become largely self-regulating (Spyrou 2006, p.77).
With the release of the United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA ’90), however, the
globalization of maritime regulations began to take place. Released in the aftermath of the
Exxon Valdez oil spill in March of 1989, OPA ’90 mandated that all oil tankers operating within
U.S. territorial water and Exclusive Economic Zone be double-hulled. This applied to any tanker
construction or major conversion contracted for after 30 June 1990 or delivered after June 1,
1994 (ibid., pp.76-82).
The implementation of OPA ’90 introduced three major developments into the tanker
industry that are symptomatic of what all future marine industry legislation may entail. To
begin, the implementation of the legislation was relatively quick, as the double-hull tanker has
become the industrial standard, with single-hull vessels slated to be phased out by 2015.
Secondly, OPA ’90 places almost unlimited liability squarely on the shoulders of ship owners
and operators, threatening severe penalties for any parties responsible for pollution (ibid., pp.83-
88). The final development, and what is perhaps the most indicative of future legislation, is the
fluidity of the OPA ’90 regulations. Rules and policies within this legislation change frequently.
Vessel owners and operators have to keep in constant contact with authorities to ensure that they
are up to date with current versions of the regulations (ibid.).
With studies indicating that emissions from marine vessels are responsible for tens of
thousands of deaths every year worldwide, the marine industry’s impact on the environment is
again coming under increased scrutiny. Governments and environmental organizations
worldwide have implemented or plan to implement legislation aimed at reducing nitrogen and
sulfur oxides, various particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds released by the
maritime industry. According to the Maritime Administration’s Annual Report to Congress

49
2007, “The maritime transportation industry has increasingly become the focus of new
environmental rules and regulations. Civil and criminal litigation against maritime interests has
increased, resulting in judicial decisions that have widespread impacts on maritime operations”
(U.S. Department of Transportation 2007, p. 25). Like OPA ’90, existing and forthcoming
regulations and legislation promise to envelope the entire marine industry in a relatively short
period.
The Kyoto Protocol represents even broader reaching legislation that attempts to reduce
emissions across the globe, encompassing all industries, whether land or sea-based, by outlining
a system of policies that covers all ratifying member countries of the United Nations. This
legislation states that the ratifying countries,

…In order to promote sustainable development, shall implement and/or

further elaborate policies and measures in accordance with its national
circumstances, such as enhancement of energy efficiency in relevant
sectors of the national economy… [And]… shall pursue limitation or
reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases… from marine bunker fuels,
working through the International Maritime Organization (United Nations
1998, p.1-2).

As with MARPOL Annex VI, the United States has to date failed to ratify this legislation
for various reasons, with some calling global warming a “paper tiger” and stating that ratifying
the Protocol is not economically feasible (Michaels 2002). However, the majority of the world’s
shipping currently falls under Kyoto Protocol and MARPOL Annex VI legislation. It is only a
matter of time before the remaining member nations are persuaded by law or simple economics
to adopt the Protocol.
In the meantime, various U.S. regulating and governing bodies such as the Environmental
Protection Agency have begun work on new legislation and policies geared toward the reduction
of emissions from marine vessels based on the regulations of MARPOL Annex VI (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 2003). Despite its failures in ratifying several major world
environmental policies, the United States government has nevertheless recognized the need for
further development of alternative energies and fuels, if for no other reason than for the security
of the country. Bill S.133, known as the “American Fuels Act of 2007,” was presented to the
first session of the One Hundred Tenth Congress in January of 2007. Among its functions was
“To promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing

50
the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new
technology” (U.S. Congress 2007, p.1). Less than one year later, new legislation was enacted
that further drives home this point. The “Energy Independence and Security Act” (EISA),
enacted on 19 December 2007 mandates that nine billion gallons of biofuel be used in 2008,
increasing to thirty-six billion gallons by the year 2022 (Verenium Corporation 2008). At this
time, this legislation affects mainly automobiles and land-based transportation. However, as the
marine industry comes under increasing fire for its environmental impact the future effects of the
EISA and similar legislation on the marine industry are unavoidable.

2. Market Considerations on the Adoption of New Technologies

Major industries around the world are researching, developing, and adopting new,
environmentally friendlier technologies to assist them in reducing their carbon footprint and their
overall impact on the Earth. In methods, machinery, efficiency, savings, and most importantly
(to businesses) profits the industrialized world is seeing and believing green. In the majority of
these cases, these industries are not changing simply to adhere to rules and regulations. In fact,
despite current legislative trends, the switch to green technologies in most instances is not
mandatory. Whether its geo-thermal heating and cooling systems for businesses, or solar panels
taking over the general services and light electrical loads in manufacturing plants (end-use
technologies), industries all over the industrialized world are realizing the benefits to their
bottom lines before being required to adhere to regulations that govern their environmental
impact.

Figure 20: The top five pressures driving green product development
(Jackson 2008, p. 5).

51
 In many industries, simple economics is providing the drive behind the new green
approach. According to a 2008 study conducted by the Aberdeen Group (Figure 20),
manufacturing and industry leaders indicate that “factors driving green in product development
fall within two general categories: internal and external pressure for social responsibility and a
strategic plan to grow business” (Jackson 2008, p. 5). Compliance with green regulations, while
important, is almost a secondary concern in comparison to the economic benefits of increased
efficiency and positive public relations.

Figure 21: Performance of green stocks (Westwood, Green is the Color of

Money 2007, p. 20).

It is no different in the marine industry, although maritime nations and companies have
been very slow to respond by comparison. Despite being an essential part of the world economy,
the marine industry has remained well hidden from the public eye. Recent reports such as those
published by Prof. James Corbett have shined an unflattering, though much needed, light on the
industry and its transgressions.
The more proactive legislative agencies such as the California Air Resources Board have
taken steps to mitigate the health and environmental damage caused by vessel emissions. These
standards are far ahead of the IMO’s MARPOL Annex VI standards pertaining to toxic
emissions. Shipping companies that call on ports in California must now abide by these
regulations or face substantial fines (Fournier 2006, pp. 51-52).

52
 Figure 22: Breakdown of estimated direct environmental damage costs on
emissions/revenue (Eurosif 2009, p. 1).

The European Commission has recently announced further efforts in assigning financial
liability to shipping companies that continue to operate without taking significant steps to
mitigate the environmental damage they cause. According to the February 2009 sector report
released by Eurosif, “The European Commission aims to internalize environmental and health-
related costs, known as negative externalities or damage costs, into transport pricing to help
make the [maritime] sector more sustainable” (Eurosif 2009, p. 1). This report was released as a
warning to the public of the “risk [posed] to investors largely due to the exposure of merchant
shipping companies to potential financial liabilities” (ibid.). It goes on to quantify the possible
financial impact of various emissions on companies and their investors, illustrated in Figure 22.
The New Industrial Revolution is bringing sweeping changes that affect every aspect of
manufacturing from production to transportation and logistics. Legislation is increasingly
regulating industries with the end goal of reducing their environmental impact or risk significant
fines. Meanwhile, green technologies and practices based on environmentally sound principles
not only provide a means of adhering to these regulations, but first and foremost increase
efficiency and allow for improved public relations all of which increase a business’ overall
bottom line. As a result, companies and entire industries are racing to embrace newer and better
methods and machinery that promise cost savings at every step. Rather than struggling to
comply with environmental law, many companies are finding it far better and more cost effective
to compete with each other in setting the standard by which others will eventually have to
comply.

53
 3. The Role of the Marine Industry in the New Industrial Revolution

The maritime industry is put into an interesting situation in the supply-and-demand

scenario involving the need for crude oil and the demand for manufactured goods and resources.
Ocean shipping is by far the largest provider of goods transport in the world. Today, the world
merchant fleet carries more than ninety percent of the global trade by volume and over sixty
percent by value (International Maritime Organization 2005, p.2.). The total size of the world
merchant fleet has grown from 23 million deadweight tons in 1870 to 758 million deadweight
tons in 1996 eventually reaching 1 billion dwt in 2007 (Steinberg 2001, p.14, and Stopford 2007,
p. 13). By current predictions, the world merchant fleet is expected to quadruple in size over the
next fifty years to 3.7 billion deadweight tons (Stopford 2007, p.13).
As the size of the world’s merchant fleet increases to keep up with international demand
for manufactured goods, petroleum, and other resources, the collective impact on the
environment increases proportionally. The world maritime industry is growing as necessary to
fulfill the demand for the resources and supplies that sustain land-based industries and
manufacturing, illustrated in Figure 23. However, by doing so the maritime industry itself
creates an ever-larger impact on the environment.

Figure 23: Projected ship demand through 2055 (Stopford 2007, p.13).

With environmental legislation continuing to be enacted by international organizations, the

marine industry is being subjected to increasing scrutiny and criticism for its existing methods,

54
machinery, and practices. As a result, the increasing size of the merchant fleet indicated in
Figure 23 is accompanied by a steadily increasing investment requirement as well. The cost of
future shipbuilding is not just in construction and operating costs, but also in the increased costs
involved in complying with environmental regulations based on current power plant designs.
Just as increased environmental awareness led to stringent regulations and sweeping
changes in other facets of the transportation industry, if the United States’ maritime industry
continues to lag behind in new technologies, it must consider ever more revolutionary changes if
it will survive the decades ahead. Demand will continue to increase and the size of the merchant
fleet required to fulfill that demand must increase as well. Meanwhile, environmental
regulations continue to become more stringent. New approaches to propulsion in the forms of
alternative fuels or propulsion methods must be considered.
The United States maritime industry must seriously consider these new approaches as
unprecedented opportunities rather than obstacles. By doing so, the maritime industry can gain a
huge advantage during this time of drastic changes. The U.S. Merchant Marine can take
advantage of the American entrepreneurial spirit and competitiveness and can become the
primary source of environmentally friendly intercontinental transport of raw materials and
commercial products. Alternately, the industry could continue to struggle as it has when it failed
to recognize the significance of the steam propulsion and again when it ignored the advantages
of the diesel engine. The U.S. Merchant Marine continues to prove its importance to the nation
as an essential lifeline for the nation during peace and war. Unless it is treated as such, however,
the industry will continue the drastic decline that began over fifty years ago.

4. Marine Industry Reaction to the New Industrial Revolution

The United States Merchant Marine now finds itself in a familiar situation. Even if no
significant changes were to occur in national or international government policies regarding
pollution and emissions, the industry still must deal with the consequences of increasing fuel
costs. The energy crisis of the mid-seventies brought on by the OPEC oil embargo demonstrated
to the nation and the maritime industry the need for alternative energy solutions and energy
independence. The U.S. marine industry finally invested in diesel engine propulsion that
increased the overall fuel efficiency of the U.S. Merchant Marine. The crisis even led to such
innovative legislation as “Project Independence” launched by President Nixon in 1974 with the

55
goal of, by 1980, weaning the United States from dependence “on any other country for the
energy we need to… keep our transportation moving” (Bailey 2004). However, as time
progressed fuel supplies were restored and the nation returned to a state of complacency. The
OPEC embargo was over by the end of 1974 and the initiatives of Project Independence were all
but forgotten. As a result, the U.S. and its maritime industry continued to grow in its addiction to
fossil fuel and its dependence on foreign suppliers.
The New Industrial Revolution however will have consequences well beyond the effects of
the 1973 energy crisis. The nation is again reeling from the effects of increased fuel oil prices,
much as it did then. However, today it comes in combination with other factors including
increased environmental awareness and an elevated social consciousness of the far-reaching
effects of fossil fuel dependence. In comparison to the crisis of thirty-five years ago, this energy
crisis will not end within the year and, in fact, has been developing over the last several decades,
with the situation witnessed in the mid-1970s being simply an early symptom of a much larger,
more serious problem.
While politics, technology, and the world as a whole have changed dramatically since the
days of Frederic Kellogg, the marine industry’s reaction to these changes will once again dictate
how it fares for decades to come. The U.S. Merchant Marine is at a point in history where its
decisions will determine either great success for the industry or compound the problems that
already exist, created by a collusion of historically poor decision-making, inadequate legislation,
and marine industry mismanagement.

56
C. “THE PROPER SOLUTION OF …CERTAIN FUEL PROBLEMS”?

1. Traditional Power Plants, Fossil Fuel, and Associated Alternatives

Today’s merchant marine is still powered by the traditional plants first developed over a
century ago. Diesel engines power the vast majority of the world’s merchant vessels. A modern
diesel engine still has an overall efficiency in the range of approximately thirty-five to fifty
percent. However, new improvements in materials and design have allowed diesel engine
manufacturers to boost the efficiency of their engines while at the same time increasing the
power-to-weight/volume ratio. Likewise, the addition of attached generators such as exhaust gas
turbines, utilizing kinetic energy from the main engine that might otherwise be wasted, increases
the overall efficiency of diesel engines to above fifty percent and may result in annual savings of
hundreds of thousands of dollars (Appendix, Notes and Calculations).
As noted earlier, heavy fuel oils that result from the petroleum distillation process are the
preferred fuels of the industry. Even as fuel prices rise, these fuels remain far cheaper than
distillate fuels in comparison and therefore result in the savings of millions of dollars annually.
However, in addition to the environmental issues associated with this type of fuel discussed
earlier there are also economic disadvantages to heavy fuel oil. New regulations, such as those
enacted in California, allow for the creation of Sulfur Emission Control Areas (SECA) where as
the name suggests levels of sulfur emissions must be below a certain level. Vessels found guilty
of emissions above the allowable level may be liable to fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The standards set for SECAs are currently well below those attainable by vessels burning heavy
fuel oil.
Simple economics of space also factor in. Heavy fuel oil requires purification equipment
necessary to remove sludge and impurities that may damage engines and restrict fuel flow.
Heating systems are also required to lower the viscosity of the fuel for efficient combustion. All
of this equipment takes up valuable space, lowering the cargo capacity of larger vessels and even
making the use of heavy fuel oil impractical for smaller vessels (Townsend 2008).
To date, the solution to these fuel oil problems has been either to blend heavy fuel with
distillate fuel or to use distillate fuel exclusively. In the case of SECA, many vessels utilize both
methods by a technique known as fuel switching in which a vessel will changeover to distillate
fuel while in transiting a SECA to adhere to the stricter emission standards.

57
 Another alternative to distillates and heavy fuel oils is natural gas. Natural gas has long
been used in LNG carriers where it provides fuel for steam production that, in turn, powers steam
turbines. In LNG carrier applications, natural gas was a predictable choice as the propulsion
plants utilized the boil-off natural gas from the vessel’s own cargo for its fuel supply. It is now
experiencing wider use in other parts of the industry thanks to dual fuel internal combustion
engines such as the MAN 51/60DF shown in Figure 24. These engines run on fuel oil, natural
gas, or a combination both.

Figure 24: MAN 51/60DF dual fuel gas engine (Townsend 2008, p. 44).

Fuel flexibility and comparable efficiency make these engines particularly attractive to
marine applications. However, dual fuel engines also offer advantages similar to fuel switching
in the more traditional heavy/distillate fuel diesel engines. Vessels utilizing natural gas burning
power plants such as this experience significant reductions in carbon dioxide, SOx, NOx, and
particulate emissions in comparison with heavy fuel oil.

2. Waste Heat Recovery and Emission Control Systems

There are five basic emission control systems being researched by U.S. companies—in-
engine and operational modifications, water based controls, after-treatment controls, shoreside
controls, and fuel switching. In-engine and operational modifications along with water based
controls all seek in some manner to improve the overall operational efficiency of marine engines,

58
either by improving combustion or by modifying it such a way as to reduce the noxious content
of the products of combustion. These modifications include fuel injection slide valves (as used
in the MAN B&W K98MC engine) and retarded timing, both of which are relatively simple
modifications and lead to significant reductions in nitrogen oxide emissions in the area of thirty
percent (MAN B&W, pp. 6-7). Other methods such as exhaust gas recirculation are significantly
more complex and costly and lead to similar results. Water-based control systems utilize
freshwater introduced into the engine at various stages of the combustion process. Humid air
motor, water injection, and water emulsion are examples of this process and lead to thirty to
seventy percent reduction of NOx. These methods all lead to significant reductions in nitrogen
oxide emissions but have little or no effect on other emissions such as particulates, sulfur,
volatile organic compounds, etc.
After-treatment control systems utilize seawater, ammonia or another catalyst to reduce the
nitrogen and/or sulfur oxide concentrations in the engine exhaust after combustion has taken
place. The Selective Catalytic Reduction or SCR process utilizes ammonia or urea injected into
the exhaust gas stream that then passes through a catalyst. The SCR process leads to an
incredible ninety percent reduction of NOx emissions. Seawater scrubbing as another method of
after-treatment emission control utilizes the natural alkalinity of seawater to reduce the sulfur
content of diesel engine emissions.
Shoreside controls and fuel switching, as described earlier, utilize methods such as cold
ironing and lower sulfur content fuel respectively to reduce emissions while in port or operating
in the coastal water of countries that have strict emission standards, such as those abiding by
MARPOL Annex VI regulations (Fournier 2006, pp.29-42).
Perhaps the simplest of the emission reduction technologies, fuel switching involves the
use of distillate fuel while in port or in SECA. This method is simple and cost effective in many
ways, considering that many modern diesel plants are already capable of such an operational
switch, having two fuel systems installed to facilitate a cold plant start up on distillate fuel and
then switching to heavy fuel oil for transits and general operation. In comparison to other
methods, this is the preferred method for many vessels, though there is still a higher operational
cost associated with increased distillate fuel consumption.

59
 Figure 25: Comparison of annual NOx emissions (in tons), diesel plant vs.
cold iron (Korn 2006, p. 7).

As noted earlier, vessel emissions in port facilities provide a major source of air pollution.
New developments such as “cold iron” technologies are now being researched that will virtually
eliminate this particular hazard from marine vessels (Figure 25). Cold Ironing is a process by
which a vessel that is in port is connected to shore based power supplies. This allows the vessel
to be on a more-or-less “dead ship” status with none of its own electrical generating equipment
on line for the duration of the vessel’s stay in port (Korn 2006).

3. Gas Turbine Power Plants

In recent decades, a relatively new type of power plant has gained in popularity in some
marine applications. The U.S. Navy first experimented with marine gas turbines in 1957 with
the installation of an early generation free-piston engine/gas turbine on the liberty ship William
Patterson. Since that time, the marine gas turbine has evolved, thanks to the adoption of
technology derived from aero-derivative gas turbines (Woodyard 2004, pp. 830-831). Although
these engines have been used extensively in military applications, they have only relatively
recently found favor in limited commercial maritime applications.
Gas turbines have the potential to revolutionize marine propulsion much like their steam-
powered predecessors did in the early twentieth century. Gas turbines utilize high temperatures
and appropriate pressures that can produce tremendous horsepower at a fraction of the weight of
traditional steam plants and diesel engines. The size affords additional benefits for gas turbines.

60
Gas turbine power plants are constructed in modules, allowing for wholesale replacement rather
than requiring on board maintenance.

Figure 26: Three basic gas turbine plants (Rowen 2006).

By combining gas turbines with heat recovery options such as those illustrated in Figure
26, these power plants can experience further improvements in efficiency. By adding
supplemental power by capturing a portion of the exhaust heat to produce steam or using it to
pre-heat the combustion air (recuperative cycle), the overall efficiency of the basic (Brayton) gas
turbine cycle can be significantly improved. Newer designs such as the Super Marine Gas
Turbine (SMGT) being developed in Japan (Figure 27), utilize a regenerative gas cycle to reduce
NOx emissions, but still allow the engine to run on marine gas oil rather than the more common
(and more expensive) jet fuel.

61
 Figure 27: Concept Super Marine Gas Turbine (SMGT) for marine
applications (Arai 2003, p. 2).

There are obvious benefits to the application of gas turbines to marine propulsion and some
challenges. Advanced gas turbine installations are expensive and require specialized training for
service and maintenance. The primary drawback to the gas turbine in marine applications is the
expensive high quality distillate fuel that is required. Similarly, while these power plants offer
greater efficiencies at seemingly lower weight and space requirements, the additional equipment
for waste heat recovery, supplemental steam power, and emissions reduction needed to realize
this potential often negate the initial weight and volume savings. Finally, the idea of clean
burning gas turbine is only a reality at high power output. During times of low power
requirements, the gas turbine is an extremely inefficient power source.
For these reasons, gas turbines in commercial marine installations are still relatively small
in number. The high power output required for high-speed military vessels makes gas turbines
the ideal power plant. Additionally, the military has a virtually unlimited budget that can afford
to absorb such expenses as high fuel costs and engine replacement.

62
 4. Advanced Hull Designs and Coatings

In addition to power plants and fuel considerations, vessel architecture and hull treatment
can directly affect the efficiency of a vessel. Innovative hull designs and advanced coatings can
lead to an increase in fuel efficiency upwards of fifteen percent or possibly more with a relatively
small initial investment (Bray).

Figure 28: Speed vs. power output based on hull condition (Appendix,
Notes and Calculations).

Anti-fouling hull coatings present possibly the most cost efficient manner of improving
fuel efficiency for an existing vessel. Though not directly related to hull design, coatings present
an area of large cost and efficiency savings. For example, as illustrated in Figure 28, a large
container vessel driven by a low-speed diesel engine, can expect a drastic increase in power and
reduction in speed as the hull becomes increasingly fouled with marine growth. New coatings
being developed promise an increased fuel efficiency of almost four percent as well as longer

63
periods between hull cleanings and decreased toxicity in the marine environment as the coating
breaks down over the course of its functional life (BNET 2006).
Innovative hull designs offer great potential for increased efficiency for new naval and
merchant vessels. Perhaps the best known of these hull design advances is the bulbous bow.
Originally developed for the warship USS Delaware in the early twentieth century by David W.
Taylor, the bulbous bow did not come into regular use in commercial fleets until the 1960s. In
the only relatively recent quest for energy independence, the U.S. Navy has begun looking closer
into this design feature, adding it to many vessels in their traditional and nuclear-powered fleets
(O’Rourke 2006, p. 4).

Figure 29: Bow section with bulbous bow being fitted on hull of CVN-77
(O'Rourke, 2006).

In 2000, the Department of Defense estimated that by installing bulbous bows on fifty of
the Navy’s newest guided missile destroyers (DDG-51) a total of 200 million dollars in life-cycle
fuel costs could be saved. However, due to funding cutbacks, this design feature has not yet
been transitioned to sea on the DDG-51 (ibid., p. 5).
Stern flaps offer another method of increasing efficiency. Aptly named, these appendages
extend from the transom of a vessel and act similarly to the flaps on airplane wings. Mounted at
an optimal angle, the flaps increase water pressure under the stern of the ship, lowering the
vessel’s overall resistance by reducing the form drag. As of November 2004, ninety-eight
vessels in the U.S. Navy had stern flaps installed with plans for an additional eighty-five. The
average cost of each stern flap was relatively inexpensive (approximately $107,000 in 2000) but

64
resulted in an overall estimated annual fuel savings of six to seven and-a-half percent per ship
(for the DDG-51) (ibid., pp. 6-7).

Figure 30: Stern flap, installed on a DDG-51 (O’Rourke 2006).

More radical and innovative design changes are constantly being considered by naval
architects and marine engineers including the SWATH (Small Water Area Twin Hull),
hydroairy, catamaran and trimaran, WIG (Wing-In-Ground effect), and other hull designs. These
designs not only offer greater speed, but also increased fuel efficiency and great cost savings.
The majority of these vessel designs, such as those shown in Figure 31, are small, high-speed
craft used primarily for troop insertion and delivery of relatively small cargoes in comparison
with large commercial vessels. Their development however, demonstrates the breadth and
possibilities of future vessel design and construction.

Figure 31: U.S. Navy-leased high-speed catamaran Joint Venture (Lamb

2003), and the Russian Korabl Maket, WIG vehicle (Whye 2005).

65
 5. Too Little, Too Late

Currently, the largest concern in the marine industry is over vessel emissions and emission
standards. The primary component of any type of petroleum fuel is hydrocarbons, constituting
approximately ninety-seven percent of the total makeup of the fuel. Burning hydrocarbon-based
fuel oil results in the various gaseous and particulate emissions such as those shown in Figure 32
(burning three percent sulfur residual fuel). While, admittedly, emissions vary considerably
depending of the grade of fuel oil used and the type of plant in which they are burned, they are
nevertheless an inherent consequence of the burning any type of fossil fuel, regardless of the
application.

Figure 32: Engine flow process and typical exhaust gas composition (MAN
B&W, p. 4).

As legislation slowly becomes more strict and the repercussions of failing to abide by
vessel emission standards becomes more costly, companies are struggling to find solutions to the

66
issue. Increasing the general efficiency of the internal combustion engine addresses this problem
only to a point, beyond which the emissions resulting from the use of residual fuel oils heavy in
sulfur and other impurities simply cannot be mitigated by the engine itself.
With this in mind, improved methods of waste heat recovery, particularly in gas-turbine
propulsion plants, but also in traditional diesel and steam plants, are being utilized with great
success by both increasing efficiency and the consequential reduction in vessel emissions.
Simple economics again comes into play concerning these installations, however. Not only are
many of these installations very expensive at the outset, but maintenance and upkeep is likewise
expensive. They may also be excessively heavy and bulky, taking up valuable space that could
otherwise be used for cargo.
Propulsion plants utilizing these installations reduce certain emissions but have generally
little effect on other products of combustion. What is more, processes such as seawater
scrubbing releases the particulate matter and sulfur it removes from exhaust gas into the water,
exchanging the contamination of one environment for another. Air emission control systems
such as these provide a cheaper alternative to the development of renewable energies and
alternative fuel solutions. However, as useful and effective as these systems may be at reducing
or eliminating vessel air emissions, they are nothing more than stopgap solutions.
Despite the great improvements in the design and efficiency of traditional marine power
plants, the emissions these engines produce and their continued consumption of fossil fuels
whether distillate fuel, heavy fuel, natural gas, or even newer derivatives as yet unknown, still
result in the same pollutants being released into the atmosphere, only in smaller concentrations.
They are valuable for the purpose of mitigating damage caused by existing power plants, but do
little to address the problem at its core—the use of fossil fuels that are inherently damaging to
the environment.

67
IV. THE FUTURE OF THE U.S. MERCHANT MARINE

I’ve got a really big engine

And it goes vroom, vroom
Could be a cradle, could be a tomb.
∼Hüsker Dü, Wheels

A. NON-FOSSIL FUEL ALTERNATIVES

1. Engines of Change
The solutions and alternatives outlined in the previous pages offer some possible relief
from the issues plaguing the marine industry and the environment today. However, the use of
these alternatives is doing little to stop the impending environmental and energy crises. There
are options that promise cleaner methods of propulsion and power production. Their application
to the marine industry, however, is limited at this time. Despite reliable data to the contrary,
these methods are considered either untested or unproven. In some cases, available alternatives
are simply impractical for use at this time. In others, their use is well proven in non-marine
industries, but outdated paradigms and archaic fears prevent their consideration for use
elsewhere. In light of the environmental impact of fossil fuel, its apparent diminishing supply,
and the increasing global energy consumption rate, consideration (or reconsideration) of options
other than the existing stopgap solutions is long overdue in the maritime industry. By doing so,
the United States Merchant Marine can capitalize on the unprecedented opportunities that these
alternatives provide.
The use of distillate fuel, blended fuel, or natural gas undoubtedly provides cleaner options
than burning heavy fuel oil. An argument could therefore be made that the industry should burn
strictly distillate fuel or natural gas. A total changeover to these alternatives would indeed
improve the air emissions from and possibly the overall efficiency of diesel engines. The
environment would likewise benefit. Distillate fuel, however, is a result of the refining process
that produces both distillate fuel as well as heavy fuel oil—one cannot generally exist without
the other. Vessel operating costs would skyrocket with the use of distillates and heavy fuel oil
would still result from the refining process with no means of disposal. In an effort to address the
issue, oil companies and refineries are investing in methods of extracting more distillates from
the residual fuel oil rather than pursuing methods of lowering its sulfur content. Natural gas,

68
with its decreased contaminants provides another alternative, but must either be stored as a
refrigerated liquid and evaporated for use as fuel or stored as a gas under high pressure. This
leads to storage and piping difficulties as well as additional equipment, resulting in more
complex space issues as the heating and purification equipment necessary for heavy fuel oil. In
the meantime, shipping companies are searching for a method of lowering vessel emissions to
acceptable standards while still burning the cheaper fuel.

2. Alternative Fuels

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 forces the U.S. marine industry to
consider another alternative in dealing with this issue—biofuels. As a means of weaning the
nation and its industries off foreign oil, the EISA mandates that thirty-six billion gallons of
various biofuels be used by the year 2022. This legislation thereby sets a precedent for the
changeover of industrial diesel engines, including marine diesel engines, from petroleum-based
fuels to biofuels (Figure 33).

Figure 33: EISA-mandated biofuel usage (Verenium Corporation 2008).

Biofuels have several advantages over other energy alternatives. First, changeover costs
are minimal as some biofuel alternatives can be used in existing internal combustion engines
with little alteration to the engine or associated systems required, particularly in the instance of
an engine burning heavy fuel. Existing fuel oil heating systems in these engines can be used to
preheat the biofuel, which generally has an increased viscosity in comparison to distillate fuels.
Secondly, the cost per metric ton of these fuels is generally cheaper than distillate fuels, starting

69
at approximately 258 dollars per metric ton (Peña 2008, p.7; and Appendix, Notes and
Calculations). However, in recent years, the cost of fuel oil, both heavy and distillate has been
extremely volatile. The price of heavy fuel oil has ranged from 258 dollars per metric ton as
noted above and going as high as 600 dollars per metric ton in early 2008. Pure distillate fuel, in
the meantime, has been significantly higher, starting at approximately 696 dollars per metric ton
and increasing exponentially with the price of heavy fuel oil. With such high prices and market
volatility in fossil fuels, the up-front cost of biofuel appears to be a distinct advantage.

Figure 34: Carbon dioxide emissions comparison of various fuels (Natural

Resources Defense Council 2008, p. 3).

Perhaps the most important advantage of biofuels is their decreased environmental impact
(including production) in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. Figure 34 illustrates the full life-
cycle carbon dioxide emissions from the listed fossil fuels and biofuels. By comparing these
emissions in pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon of gasoline equivalent, research has shown that
these various biofuels could potentially contribute only a fraction of the carbon dioxide
emissions as fossil fuel. As carbon accounts for the greatest amount of emissions from internal
combustion engines, this can lead to as much as eighty percent reduction of carbon-based
atmospheric pollution (Peña 2008, and Natural Resources Defense Council 2008).

70
 However, the advantages of biofuels may not be exactly what they seem. Rudolph Diesel’s
original concept of his namesake engine could utilize peanut oil as fuel, but the significantly
higher volatility of petroleum fuel oil quickly made it the preferred fuel for these engines. While
biofuels are improving with such process methods as pyrolysis, today’s efforts at revitalizing
biofuels for use in internal combustion engines are again demonstrating a disadvantage of the
lower heating value as compared to fossil fuel (Edwards 2008, and Energy Information
Administration 2005, pp. 159-161). In large marine engines, biofuels such as ethanol require
that as much twice the amount of fuel be burned in comparison with fossil fuel. Regardless of
the type of biofuel used, current formulas and blends still have a significantly lower volatility
than fossil fuels.

Figure 35: Heating values of selected fuels (Energy Information Administration

2005, pp. 159-161).

For maritime applications, the drawback of burning biofuels is obvious, reducing the
effective range of ships for the same fuel capacity. Additionally, by comparing the data in
Figure 35 and the calculations contained in the Appendix, Notes and Calculations, it is apparent
that the apparent cost savings per metric ton of biofuel would be diminished by the amount
required in comparison to fossil fuel. Biofuels are also prone to coking and corrosivity, adding
to the maintenance costs of internal combustion engines (Edwards 2008, p.19).
These disadvantages can be mitigated by blending biofuels with conventional fossil fuels.
A blend of up to twenty percent fossil fuel with biodiesel can still be utilized in conventional
diesel plants. However, engine modifications are required for blends containing a higher
percentage of biodiesel due in part to the corrosion of engine components such as fuel injectors
and exhaust valves (U.S. Department of Energy, Biodiesel Handling and Use Guidelines, 2006,
p.38).

71
 Despite the disadvantages, the environmental benefits of biofuels are still quite relevant.
The benefits are even greater when compared to marine diesel fuel containing a greater amount
of impurities such as carbon and sulphur. The greater the percentage of biodiesel blended with
conventional fossil fuel, the greater the reduction of toxic emissions from conventional power
plants (Energy Information Administration 2005).

3. Fuel Cells

Fuel cells offer one of the most promising areas of research into potentially non-fossil fuel
power production. Fuel cells are electrochemical devices similar in function and construction to
batteries. However, unlike batteries, fuel cells require an input fuel. Relatively simple in
construction and operation, fuel cells produce power using basic elements as fuel (hydrogen) and
oxygen and emit only heat and water as exhaust products.

Figure 36: Basic polymer electrolytic membrane (PEM) fuel cell operation
(Yacobucci 2004, p.6).

Fuel cells are inherently more efficient than combustion engines due to not being limited
by the Second Law of thermodynamics as expressed by the Carnot efficiency cycle. Combustion

72
of fossil fuel in an engine requires a three-part conversion process of fuel → heat → work,
resulting in a loss of work potential in the fuel. Common combustion engines run at an
efficiency ranging from thirty-five to fifty percent, losing much of their overall efficiency to heat
losses. By comparison, fuel cells skip the fuel → heat step, relying instead on a chemical process
as illustrated in Figure 36. This process converts fuel directly to work/energy resulting in an
efficiency of approximately forty to sixty-five percent (O’Hayre, et al 2006, p. 26 and Yacobucci
2004).
There are several types of fuel cells available today. As seen in Figure 37, each type of
fuel cell offers an output varying in magnitude from five kilowatts to eleven megawatts. Fuel
cells, much like batteries, can therefore be “stacked” to provide the necessary power output.
Stacking allows for a variable power yield making fuel cells extremely versatile. Power plants
utilizing this technology can be sized for virtually any application.

Figure 37: Types of fuel cells and basic description (Hoffmann 2001 pp.
156-157 and Le Goff 2005 ).

Although fuel cells utilize pure hydrogen for energy production, they have the added
flexibility of being able to utilize hydrogen produced by any means, including fossil fuels,
nuclear power, biomass, etc. (Figure 38). The generation of hydrogen via the use of benign,
domestic, sustainable energy sources offers tremendous environmental benefits. In contrast to
other common fuel sources, hydrogen has no carbon content whatsoever. However, if that

73
hydrogen is generated by the use of hydrocarbons, as noted above, the environmental benefit is
negated. Generating hydrogen in this manner requires reforming, a refining process, that greatly
increases the cost of the hydrogen fuel and generates harmful waste and in-use emissions,
including carbon.

Figure 38: Hydrogen pathways (Yacobucci 2004, p. 5).

While fuel cells offer a cleaner power source and greater efficiency than combustion
engines, several hurdles must be overcome before they obtain greater use in marine and
commercial applications. Corrosive liquids and high operating temperatures make fuel cells
impractical for many applications and costly materials such as platinum make them inherently
expensive. The transportation and storage of hydrogen may also very cost prohibitive. While
fossil fuel is readily available for every mode of transportation (and by every mode of
transportation), hydrogen fueling stations, ports, etc. are, at this time, extremely rare (EG&G
2004, p.10). The use of hydrocarbons and reformers can alleviate this problem but not without
the issue of emissions and waste becoming prevalent once again.
The absence of a hydrogen fuel infrastructure makes industries reluctant to fund research
into the development of a hydrogen economy. However, efforts are being made to change this.
International classification society Bureau Veritas recently developed new guidelines to assist in

74
creating just such an infrastructure. According to Gijsbert de Jong, Bureau Veritas product
manager,

Given the current focus on the environmental impact of shipping,

the industry is looking for ways to reduce exhaust gas emissions.
Also, the recent volatility in oil prices, combined with the
expectation that fossil gas may become increasingly scarce, is
motivating owners and operators to explore alternative means of
generating onboard power. To this end, fuel cells appear to be a
promising solution for clean and efficient electrical power
generation at sea (Maritime Reporter, March 2009).

In Europe, fuel cells are experiencing widespread application in the marine environment.
Germany’s Hydrogen Challenger is a converted tanker that utilizes wind power in the production
of hydrogen (Broadhurst 2008, pp.35-36). The “Green Tug Project” based in the Netherlands
hopes to produce a near zero emission, hydrogen-powered tug in the near future (Maritime
Reporter, March 2009). Worldwide, as of 2007, there are approximately eight commercial
applications in concept form or part of ongoing studies, as well as twelve small vessel
applications. However, as with other new and untested technologies, the primary platform for
hydrogen utilization is the military with twelve applications that are known (Kumar, et al. 2007).

Figure 39: The Hindenburg disaster, 06 May 1937

(www.hydrogennow.org).

75
 It is fear however, that poses the one of the greatest obstacles to fuel cell development. The
spectacular destruction of the German dirigible Hindenburg in New Jersey in 1937 effectively
ended what may have developed into a promising hydrogen economy. Since that time, public
mistrust and a lack of reliable information regarding hydrogen and fuel cells have done little to
sway opinion in their favor. While there are unavoidable dangers involved in the production,
storage, and transportation of hydrogen, research continues to prove that fuel cells are reliable
sources of energy that are predominantly safer than their petroleum alternatives (Gupta 2009,
pp.560-562).

4. Nuclear Power

Nuclear power has been used for decades with great success in commercial electric power
generation and some navies of the world. The United States Navy currently operates more than
eighty nuclear-powered surface vessels and submarines, powered by over one hundred reactors
(World Nuclear Association 2008, p.2). At the same time, nuclear propulsion has proven
economically essential to Russia, servicing the country’s Arctic icebreaking fleet. The increased
power levels required for breaking thick ice, coupled with the refueling difficulties that plague
vessels with traditional power plants serving Arctic regions, make nuclear propulsion the ideal
alternative. By adopting atomic power, Russia’s nuclear fleet has increased its Arctic navigation
capabilities from two to ten months per year, and year-round in the Western Arctic (ibid.).
As of October 2008, over 150 nuclear-powered vessels, powered by more than 220 small
nuclear reactors, ply the world’s oceans. Despite this continuing demonstration of nuclear
propulsion capabilities and overall safety, atomic power has not yet successfully penetrated the
commercial maritime sector. The 1950s saw the launch of the first nuclear-powered non-military
vessels, the Soviet Union’s icebreaker N.S. Lenin in 1957 and the afore-mentioned N.S.
Savannah. Russia’s icebreaking fleet continues to utilize nuclear propulsion despite the Lenin’s
two relatively minor accidents. In the United States however, the Savannah failed to spark
significant interest in nuclear propulsion as was hoped. As a result, any great hopes of a nuclear-
powered merchant marine in the twentieth century all but vanished when the vessel was
decommissioned in 1972 after less than ten years of ultimately unremarkable service (ibid., and
Ragheb 2008, p.11).

76
 With an undeserved reputation as an ultimately destructive power, nuclear energy holds
incredible potential for both land-based and marine applications. Requiring no oxygen and little
fuel, and producing no emissions or exhaust, atomic engines offer capabilities that cannot be
matched by traditional fossil fuel power plants.

Figure 40: Power density comparison (Adams 1995, p.6).

At first glance, a comparison of the power density of various propulsion plants (Figure 40)
appears to put marine nuclear power plants at a disadvantage. However, taking into
consideration the amount of fuel that must be carried on board for a traditional power plant,
nuclear propulsion systems provide a power density that is competitive if not far above that of
conventional marine power plants. Nuclear propulsion plants also take up considerable less
volume than comparable units and fuel do, requiring approximately forty percent less volume
than an equivalent combustion gas turbine for a nominal ten-day voyage with an increasing
advantage for longer ranges (Adams 1995, p.7). The increased power density and lack of fuel-
related constraints would allow for improved cargo capacity, greater operating speed and range,
and an overall increase in a merchant vessel’s productivity and earning power.
Efficiency and earning power is of the utmost importance in studying nuclear power for
commercial vessels. Unlike the virtually unlimited budget of the U.S. military, commercial

77
vessels are owned and operated by private businesses, whose main concern is earning money for
themselves and their investors. Considering installation and operating costs, training, etc.,
nuclear propulsion is an extremely expensive proposition. However, as an investment in the
future of a company, atomic power would prove to be ultimately beneficial to the bottom line,
increasing valuable cargo capacity and saving a company millions of dollars in fuel costs over
the course of a short time (ibid.).
In addition to the great leaps in efficiencies that can be attained through nuclear propulsion,
the use of atomic energy will eliminate the toxic emissions that result from the combustion of
any kind of fossil fuel. Furthermore, while many consider radioactivity and radioactive
emissions from nuclear plants to be a serious concern, “Less well known is the release of
radioactivity from coal plants, in amounts greater than those released from nuclear plants in
normal operation” (Murray 2000, p. 449).
In their relatively short history, nuclear ships have demonstrated a high degree of reliability
in some of the world's harshest environments. Unlike their traditional counterparts, they are not
subject to fuel problems or the myriad of mechanical failures that are common to combustion
engines. Similar reliability has been demonstrated concerning the safety of nuclear marine
propulsion plants. The United Sates Navy has accumulated more than 5,500 reactor years of
accident-free operation. Likewise, Russia (and the former Soviet Union) has logged
approximately 6,000 nautical reactor years with little incident (World Nuclear Association 2008,
p. 2).

Figure 41: Mushroom cloud following an unrestrained

nuclear reaction (lfm.mit.edu).

78
 Despite a proven safety record, many believe that mobilizing atomic power by placing
reactors into merchant vessels is the equivalent of allowing unguarded nuclear weapons to roam
the world’s oceans. While there are dangers associated with atomic energy as there is with any
technology, “it can be stated positively that a reactor cannot explode like a nuclear bomb”
(Murray 2000, p.420). To date the evidence supporting the safety and reliability of nuclear
propulsion indicates that it involves less risk than that associated with the transportation of
petroleum products such as liquefied natural gas (ibid., pp.419-435).
Citing the drastic changes in the world economy and environmental outlook that have taken
place in the decades since Savannah’s retirement, a nuclear renaissance could prove a boon to
the United States maritime industry. Nuclear power promises to provide clean, reliable, and cost
effective propulsion. “The future is bright, the benefits are apparent, and the technology is
available. The impact of nuclear power on ocean shipping can be as great as that of
containerization” (Adams 1995, p. 8).

79
B. MERGING YESTERDAY’S METHODS WITH TOMORROW’S TECHNOLOGY

1. Industrial (R)evolution and the Hybrid Solution

There are several promising alternatives to fossil fuel. Admittedly, no single alternative
provides the solution that will reverse the decline of the U.S. maritime industry. However, by
taking lessons from history and combining them with the promising technology of today, the
United States Merchant Marine can take a proactive leap toward resurgence.
Hybridizing merchant vessels by combining propulsion methods is as ancient as the
maritime industry itself. Vessels that were propelled by oars eventually added sails to
supplement human energy when winds were prevailing. As technology improved, sails were
adjustable to compensate for almost any wind direction and oars were removed from vessels.
The S.S. Savannah was an example of the next evolution in hybridization. With her
conventional sails and steam propulsion plant, the vessel combined a tried and true method of
propulsion with the innovative technology of the period. Vessels soon lost their masts and relied
solely on steam power for momentum. The U.S. unknowingly pioneered the application of
steam to ocean travel but failed to capitalize on its own groundbreaking concept.
The evolution of marine propulsion is a continuous process that has taken place over
centuries and continues today. Just as oars gave way to sails and sails to mechanized steam
plants and the internal combustion engine, the evolution of fuel has been integral to the growth
and development of the marine industry. Wood was replaced by coal and coal by fuel oil. Each
step of this process has provided a more efficient and economical means of propulsion than the
last.
Since the switch from sail to steam, there have been only a handful of attempts at
combining propulsion technologies. These have all ultimately failed in furthering the evolution
of vessel propulsion in the commercial maritime industry. Present technology, however, offers
virtually limitless possibilities in this area. By reconsidering proven methods of periods past and
combining them with revolutionary new concepts, a new generation of marine propulsion will be
revealed that will transform the industry.
The most important lesson that can be taken from past use of hybrid propulsion such as the
S.S. Savannah is that hybrid plants can provide an essential means of transitioning from one fuel
or propulsion method to another. Wind power, alternative fuels, solar power, fuel cells, etc. do

80
not yet provide the ultimate solutions to the energy and environmental problems that plague the
industry today. However, they are a means of lessening the impact of the marine industry until
new and better solutions are developed. By applying hybrid technologies to the marine industry,
the changeover can be made much more easily and cost effectively.
The industry is on the verge of the next step in the evolution of marine propulsion. The
alternatives that are necessary and sought after are already available and the options are
continuously expanding. However, it is not a simple task to change from one power plant to
another, and that assumption is not made. When concerns of initial cost, operational restrictions
within certain ports, fuel availability, etc. are taken into consideration, an immediate and
complete changeover from one method to another is simply uneconomical. As a result, in the
years and decades to come, the changeover from fossil fuel to alternate fuels and propulsion
methods, though necessary and inevitable, will not and cannot be instantaneous. Hybrid
propulsion plants, like that of the S.S. Savannah at the close of the age of sail, can provide the
transitional technology necessary to bridge the gap to future power plants.

2. The Modern Age of Sail

The most basic of the potential hybrid solutions is straightforward wind power. Early
merchant vessels powered by the wind were at the mercy of a renewable resource that was not
always a cooperative partner in the shipping business. Trade routes were dictated by prevailing
winds. Transit times stretched into months and even years with no guarantee of success.
Companies are taking a fresh look at this ancient propulsion method, however, and innovations
promise the environmental benefits of wind energy in conjunction with the reliability of modern
propulsion systems.
Companies such as SkySails based out of Hamburg, Germany and KiteShip of California
utilize football field-sized parachutes to assist specifically in the propulsion of large merchant
vessels, illustrated in Figure 42. In these applications, wind power is used to supplement
standard propulsion systems. Their installations are relatively small and detract little from the
cargo capacity of the vessel. Such installations promise a fuel savings of up to fifty percent but
average around ten to thirty-five percent with overall operational savings estimated at twenty-
two percent (SkySails 2007, and Naval Architect 2008). Kites and sails of this design have the
same drawback as the ancient sail designs. Their effective operating envelope is small and

81
limited to little more than prevailing winds. Nevertheless, for specific trade routes, this type of
wind-assisted propulsion can be an effective means of fuel savings.

Figure 42: Modern Beluga SkySail® installed on merchant vessel (Naval

Architect 2007, p. 22).

Wind-propelled vessels are also being developed that utilize turbine rotors for propulsion.
In contrast to kites or sails, turbine rotors can provide propulsion or propulsion assistance in a
wider range of wind direction. One example of this type of propulsion is the Flettner rotor
developed by Anton Flettner in the early twentieth century. Flettner’s vessel Bruckau (Figure
43) proved his design was valid and that the rotors were efficient. However, at the time the
vessel was launched, fuel oil was cheap and vessel owners lost interest in Flettner’s design
despite the stir that it caused (Enercon 2008, p. 2).

Figure 43: Flettner’s Rotorship, Bruckau, circa 1926 and Artist's conception of Enercon's E-
Ship 1 (Salter 2008, p. 7, and Enercon 2008, respectively).

82
 The German energy company, Enercon resurrected the concept of the Flettner rotor for its
new build vessel E-Ship 1, seen in Figure 43. Upon completion, the vessel will be a 130-meter
long cargo vessel designed for the transport of Enercon’s wind turbine components worldwide
and will be an example of how a hybrid merchant vessel can benefit both the environment and
business.

Figure 44: Artist's conception of Solarsailor cargo vessel

(www.solarsailor.com).

Another form of sail propulsion goes a step further in hybrid technology by combining a
more traditional style of wind power with solar cells. The Australian Solar Sailor Holdings
Limited, in cooperation with China’s COSCO shipping company will produce a bulker and
tanker fitted with aluminum sails thirty meters in length and covered with photovoltaic panels
(Figure 44). The sails will harness the wind to cut fuel costs by between twenty and forty
percent, while the solar cells will be used to meet approximately five percent of a vessel's energy
needs (Cubby 2008).

83
 A combination of wind and solar is also being used aboard a San Francisco passenger ferry
owned and operated by Hornblower Cruise & Events, illustrated in Figure 46 below. In this
particular hybrid vessel, wind is not being used directly for propulsion, but rather for electrical
power generation feeding batteries. Similar plants are in the works for tugs being built for Foss
Maritime Corporation and Seabulk Towing (Crowley 2008, p. 70). These are only small-scale
applications relative to the immensity of the maritime industry, but it is a start and promises to
show that low-emission hybrid technology can be practical and profitable.

Figure 45: Green Horn, hybrid ferry power plant (Crowley 2008, p. 70).

An important aspect of modern hybrid plants illustrated by the Hornblower tug is the
potential to convert renewable energy into not only direct propulsive power, but also into
secondary energy production that can be used for other means, including alternative propulsion
methods. For this reason, hybrid technology offers significant potential for hydrogen fuel cells.
For example, energy from photovoltaic cells or rotating wind turbines can be used to produce
hydrogen. As a result, by harnessing natural, renewable energy like the power plants illustrated
above, hybrid systems can provide clean, zero- or near-zero-emission propulsion that could
efficiently replace traditional power plants and eliminate a significant hazard to the environment.

3. A New Spin on Turbine Propulsion

Modern hybrid propulsion plants provide new opportunities for older propulsion methods
that, while proven in certain applications, have decreased in popularity due in part to the price

84
restrictions of fuel oil. For example, large steam turbine plants have been replaced with diesel
engines that provide greater efficiency in terms of fuel usage as well as use of space. In
applications such as LNG carriers, where steam turbines utilizing natural gas boil-off have been
the standard, steam plants are slowly being supplanted by dual fuel internal combustion engines.
In many applications, turbines have proven to be uneconomical for power reasons. Steam
and gas plants can power a turbine to incredible rotating speeds. However, to maintain efficient
fuel burning, the plants must maintain a minimum turning rate. As a result, turbines have the
capability of producing immense horsepower, but must be geared down considerably in order to
convert the efficient turning rate of the turbine into a reasonable speed for the shaft and
propeller. By applying new hybrid technologies, turbine speed can be more efficiently
controlled and converted to propulsive energy without excessive gearing. In short, steam and gas
turbine propulsion could prove to be far more economical and efficient propulsion methods than
they were previously believed to be.

Figure 46: A fuel cell hybrid steam plant (Kumar, et al. 2007).

This is another example of an area in which hydrogen fuel cells hold great promise. The
plant illustrated in Figure 46 is a hybrid hydrogen/steam power concept developed as part of a

85
2007 ASME paper titled “Fuel Cells as an Alternative to Cold Ironing.” As the title implies, the
study focused on electrical power generation while pierside rather than as a full-scale propulsion
plant, and utilizes fossil fuel in the production of hydrogen. Nevertheless, as an example of the
application of hydrogen fuel cells to the production of steam power in the marine environment,
this plant provides an excellent illustration of transitional technology (explained further in
following sections). Because of the lack of research and development of fuel cell technology,
large-scale propulsion plants of this type are not economically feasible at this time. However, as
technology improves and the hydrogen economy becomes more developed, this form of hybrid
steam turbine could ultimately provide zero-emission propulsion for merchant ships of all sizes.
Nuclear energy likewise lends itself well to the hybrid method of power production. The
fission process does not directly produce propulsive energy, but rather generates heat that is then
converted into other forms of energy. Steam and gas turbine plants are natural extensions of this
process.

Figure 47: Hybrid nuclear-steam propulsion plant concept for LNG tanker (U.S. Merchant
Marine Academy 2008).

86
 Global climate change in recent decades has opened up vast expanses of water in the once
ice covered Arctic regions, opening potential oil fields and renewing interest in the legendary but
heretofore undiscovered Northwest Passage. Because working in far northern regions involves
unique restrictions not inherent in other areas of the world, nuclear power is thought by many to
be the key to unlocking the potential that lies beyond the Arctic Circle. In 2008, a project was
undertaken by a group of faculty and midshipmen at the United States Merchant Marine
Academy with the goal of developing a concept green LNG vessel suitable for transit between
northwest Russia and the northeastern United States. The hybrid nuclear propulsion plant that
was developed (Figure 47) was compared to a base ship that utilized diesel electric propulsion,
and to a vessel propelled by a combined cycle gas and steam turbine plant.
The results of the study indicate that nuclear propulsion would prove to be much less
harmful to the environment, offering potential pollution risks lower than the COGAS and diesel
electric plants by factors of 3 and 6.5, respectively. The study also concluded that operating
speed of the nuclear vessel would surpass the comparison models. While the annual operating
cost of the nuclear plant exceeded that of the other plants, the operating cost per kilowatt was
considerably less than the COGAS plant and almost half that of the diesel electric plant and did
not factor in the increased profitability of the improved speed (U.S. Merchant Marine Academy
2008, pp.5-7). The study’s conclusions go much further than demonstrating the applicability of
the midshipmen’s conceptual propulsion plant to Arctic regions. They show that a nuclear and
steam hybrid plant is a viable and efficient means of vessel propulsion, irrespective of its
operating region.

Figure 48: Hybrid nuclear-gas turbine (Vergara 2002, pp.6-7).

87
 The hybrid nuclear-gas turbine is similar to the hybrid steam turbine in that it utilizes the
energy developed by nuclear fission to heat a medium that is then routed under pressure to
turbines. The plant illustrated in Figure 48 above utilizes modular helium reactors as the power
source for its gas turbines. This is the conceptual nuclear power plant designed for installation in
the proposed FastShip container vessel. As with the U.S.M.M.A. concept green LNG vessel,
studies showed that the hybrid nuclear-gas powered FastShip concept would not only be
economically viable, but would result in a cost savings of approximately thirty million dollars
per year as compared to the base vessel, powered by a straight gas turbine (Vergara 2002, and
McEnteggart 2008). The economic study contained within Vergara and McKessons’ 2002 paper
could not take into account the recent volatility of fuel oil costs which would drive that savings
up between two and three times the stated value at the peak of oil prices.
Compared to conventional propulsion methods, the proposed nuclear and nuclear hybrid
propulsion plants for the FastShip concept would be much more environmentally friendly as
illustrated in Figure 49. It must be noted that the “hybrid” as used in the table below refers to the
FastShip plant specifically, which utilizes a conventional gas turbine in addition to the nuclear
power gas turbines installed on board the vessel.

Figure 49: Relative environmental impact of proposed FastShip propulsion plants

(Vergara 2002, p.12).

88
V. A COMBINED EFFORT TOWARD A COMMON GOAL

It’s time to change

It can’t stay the same.
∼Pantera, Revolution is My Name

We can’t do nothing,
And think someone else will make it right.
∼Bad Religion, Kyoto Now!

A. GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY SUPPORT

1. The New Administration and Its Economic and Energy Plans

Figure 50: Barack Obama campaign poster (Shepherd Fairey 2008).

A Merchant Marine renaissance in the United States will require the combined effort of the
government and marine industry if it is to succeed in reversing its decades-long decline. On 20
January 2009, the United States inaugurated a new president and administration on the platform
of “Change We Can Believe In.” Included in the auspices of that platform was the “New Energy
for America” plan that urged Americans to embrace green energy prospects with the warning,
“We must act quickly and we must act boldly to transform our entire economy” (Obama for
America 2008).

89
 Our nation is confronted by two major energy challenges—our
dependence on foreign oil and global climate change—both of which stem
from our current dependence on fossil fuels for energy… We have a
moral, environmental, economic, and security imperative to address our
dependence on foreign oil and tackle climate change in a serious,
sustainable manner (ibid., p.2).

The administration subsequently submitted two pieces of legislation to Congress, including

“American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” This act is ambitious in scope but offers
only meager monetary assistance for the marine industry. The 700 billion dollar stimulus
package includes only 100 million dollars in grants to small shipyards. These grants are awarded
to various shipyards around the country employing up to 1,200 employees. The money is
earmarked for such items as welding and metal cutting equipment, cranes, information
technology upgrades, etc. (Marine News, March 2009, p.24). Of the approximate 10 million
dollars granted as of March 2009, none of the money is slated for research and development into
new propulsion technologies (ibid.).
This legislation is reminiscent, on a smaller scale, of the economic support provided to
shipyards during and after World War II. The legislation at that time allowed the shipyard
manufacturing processes to be refined, but resulted in little advancement of the vessels
themselves. New vessels were produced quickly, but equipped with outdated propulsion plants.
What the industry is seeing now is more of the same.
The second piece of legislation, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009”
(released 31 March 2009 as “Discussion Draft” only) is a bit more forward thinking. The draft
summary of the Act states, “The legislation will create millions of new clean energy jobs, save
consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, enhance America’s energy independence,
and cut global warming pollution” (Draft Summary 2009, p.1). The legislation itself, however,
while offering extensive legislative support toward clean energy initiatives, outlines rather
ambiguous, weakly worded guidelines for the marine industry.

Standards …applicable to emissions of greenhouse gases from new marine

vessels and locomotives, and from new engines used in marine vessels and
locomotives, shall achieve the greatest degree of emissions reduction
achievable based on the application of technology which the Administrator
determines will be available at the time such standards take effect, taking into
consideration cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the application

90
 of such technology. Any such regulations shall take effect after such period as
the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application
of the requisite technology (American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,
p.271).

In their current forms, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will do little to assist the nation’s marine
industry and, in fact, may only worsen the decline of the U.S. Merchant Marine. Clean energy
legislation will indeed bring stricter rules and regulations into affect in the marine industry.
However, the insufficient financial assistance provided for the marine industry does little to
encourage the research and development of new technologies that help the industry to abide by
those regulations. The wording of the legislation, as evidenced above, leaves more than enough
ambiguity for companies to consistently request and receive extensions and exemptions
concerning emissions regulations.
While demonstrating minimal support for the marine industry, these acts do nothing to
promote its future. Rather, they leave the maritime sector dependent on insufficient funding that
promotes the continued use of soon-to-be obsolete technologies. As a result, the nation’s marine
industry will continue its dependence on outdated legislation such as the Jones’ Act, with no
motivation or government funding to pursue new technologies.

2. Industry-Supportive Legislation

What is needed instead is legislation that supports the entire industry by promoting the
research and development of new propulsion methods. Much like the Ocean Mail Act of 1891,
this legislation would provide funding for U.S. flag vessels carrying cargo nationally and
internationally. In addition, it would offer significant backing for those companies that spend
time and resources researching and developing new technology into alternative fuels and
propulsion methods. Specifically, legislation should provide subsidies for companies that use
current technologies to lower the carbon footprint of existing vessels and increased subsidies for
new vessels that utilize transitional propulsion technology, taking advantage of alternative fuels
and propulsion methods that are available. Still higher subsidies should be provided to
companies that expend resources into developing carbon-free propulsion technologies such as
nuclear power and hydrogen fuel cells.

91
 Influential organizations such as the Navy League of the United States also play an
important role in the legislative support of the U.S. Merchant Marine and maritime industry. The
Navy League, a major supporter of the nation’s maritime interests from a national defense
perspective, voices its support of the U.S. flag merchant marine by stating that it backs,

Budgetary and legislative measures — including capital and operations

related changes in U.S. tax laws — and the harmonization of domestic and
international regulations to improve the competitive position of the U.S.-
flag fleet in the world marketplace (Navy League 2009, p.19).

Furthermore, the policy statement declares that the Navy League believes in “MARAD’s
comprehensive “green” program to promote sustainability (use resources today to preserve
resources we’ll need tomorrow) throughout the marine transportation system” (ibid., p. 20). This
is in keeping with the recent legislative acts of the government that promises 100 million dollars
to small shipyards and government support of green initiatives. However, it is in stark contrast
to the 2008 Navy League policy recommendation that the U.S. government set aside as much as
fifteen to eighteen billion dollars in funds annually for the U.S. maritime industry. This funding
is to be dedicated for research and development and new construction with an additional three
billion dollars to fund maintenance and modernization of the existing fleet (Navy League 2008,
p.19). The 2008 report goes on to state that it supports the overall funding of the maritime
industry, and a Title XI Ship Construction Loan Guarantee Program for U.S. commercial
industry, similar to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 “for both economic and national security
reasons,” a statement that is absent from the 2009 policy altogether (ibid.).
It is simply not enough that organizations such as the Navy League of the United States
continue to recognize the importance of the U.S. Merchant Marine and maritime industry to the
nation’s security and economic well-being and state their support for the same. Rather, it is
imperative that these organizations go several steps beyond verbal support and back significant
funding that can offer the necessary and vital assistance to the marine sector. The funding
suggested in the League’s 2008 policy statement and an updated Title XI Construction Loan
Guarantee Program specifically supporting the development of new technologies and their
application to new vessels are obviously expensive, but they offer the support that is essential if
the U.S. maritime industry is to recover and play a significant role in the nation’s economic
recovery.

92
 Much as the Department of Transportation has been promoting the lower environmental
impact of inland and near-coastal shipping (discussed in Green with Envy: Setting an Example
for the Transportation Industry, below), the same should be done for international shipping. The
Wall Street Journal published an article on 27 November 2007 entitled, “Ships Draw Fire for
Rising Role in Air Pollution,” an article that points to the afore mentioned environmental impact
studies of Dr. James Corbett. This article necessarily points to the negative impact of carbon and
other toxic emissions from today’s cargo vessels, but fails to point out that other forms of goods
transport are far worse for the environment. Prof. Jose Femenia, of the United States Merchant
Marine Academy in a response to the article, states the following:

Oil-fired ships are the least-polluting carriers of cargo on a per-ton-mile

basis. Compared to air cargo transport, ships produce only 1/50 to 1/40
the amount of carbon dioxide per ton-mile as the most efficient air cargo-
liners. The modern diesel prime-mover coupled with an appropriate heat
recovery system …is the most efficient power plant available and results
in the least carbon footprint (Femenia 2007).

As Prof. Femenia points out, ocean transport of goods on commercial vessels has far less
impact on the environment than air transport when considering the amount of goods carried.
Similar to the impact of domestic water transport, this is the single most important aspect of
marine shipping that must be promoted by the government as a basis for its supporting
legislation. However, Prof. Femenia continues by saying,

Using nuclear-powered ships on dedicated routes to carry long-haul

cargoes would alleviate the need to use fossil fuels, thus preventing the
formation of carbon dioxides, particulate matter, and other pollutants
such as sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides (ibid.).

This is an extremely important point to be made. While promoting the lower

environmental impact of the marine industry, specifically the merchant marine, is vital to the
growth of the industry, it is only half of the effort required. Research and development into
alternative, carbon neutral technologies such as nuclear power is also critical. Both of these
approaches must be reflected in any government effort to assist the maritime industry.
Current economic legislation such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 does very little to address the dismal situation in which the marine industry finds itself. As

93
a result, it ignores an important tool for the reversal of the nation’s financial and employment
situation. A revival of the U.S. marine industry would make great strides in reversing the current
economic downturn.
In 1960, the United States Merchant Marine accounted for approximately seventeen
percent of the world fleet and approximately 2,926 vessels (RITA 2002). Today, that percentage
has dwindled to only two percent and comprises less than 500 vessels (ibid.). Current
employment statistics indicate that the U.S. Merchant Marine, both domestic and international,
employs approximately 340,000 licensed and unlicensed mariners (Cummings 2008, p.26). Any
effort made to revive the U.S. Merchant Marine could therefore result in literally millions of new
jobs. This is not taking into consideration the number of jobs required ashore to assist in the
restructuring of the marine industry, the refitting of existing vessels, and the building of new
ones.
Finally, the average age of qualified mariners is gradually rising. Any legislation
considered by Congress must take steps to attract and educate the next generation of mariners.
To this end, as of October 2008 the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Affairs, part of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is preparing legislation to establish a
maritime education loan program that would offer low-interest loans for tuition assistance to
mariners (Cummings 2008). While this is a step in the right direction, it is, ultimately,
insufficient. The propulsion technologies required for the merchant marine of the future, such as
vessels utilizing nuclear power, require an expertise and level of training that is not commonly
found in today’s maritime industry outside of the military. While institutions such as the U.S.
Merchant Marine Academy and the state maritime academies offer programs specializing in
nuclear propulsion and other alternative technologies, the focus of these educational programs is
still on traditional power plants. A shift in focus of the marine industry cannot succeed without a
revolution within the underlying training and educational institutions.

3. Cooperation between Military and Commercial Sectors

Historically speaking, the commercial and military maritime interests of the nation were
once inseparable. The commercial maritime sector was an integral part of the military’s ability
to project its power around the globe and naval forces were vital for the protection of the
merchant fleet. In the early part of the twentieth century, however, that interdependency was

94
lost. As a result, the U.S. Merchant Marine today finds itself separated by several degrees of
funding and resources from the most technologically advanced ocean-going fleet in the world
today.

Traditional naval forces could no longer protect sea lanes, nor did they
need traditional forms of support from their civilian counterparts. Alfred
Mahan’s long-revered doctrine on the interdependence of navy and
merchant marine lost relevance. The American merchant marine was cast
adrift from its naval alliances and left to float on its own, under the near-
sighted vision of the federal bureaucracy (Butler 1997, pp.198-199).

This is significant in the modern era because in the United States, as in other industrialized
nations, much of the drive toward new technologies and alternative energy sources is limited to
the military. Because the development and application of many of the innovative power plants
and vessel and hull designs are subject to extensive and costly ongoing research and
experimentation, the virtually unlimited budget of the armed forces makes it the perfect platform
for the development of these designs.
Alternative energy sources such as biofuels and other energy sources are continuously
being researched for military and naval applications. Nuclear power, for instance, has been in
use in the U.S. Navy for decades and continues to be updated and modernized today as new
technologies emerge. As with U.S. government legislation, the impetus is not necessarily
environmental in nature, but rather it is with the intention of improving the country’s security by
reducing its dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuel. Regardless of the nature and source of
these developments, they can be of great benefit to the commercial maritime industry. However,
because of the national defense focus of these studies, new developments in fuels and energy are
regarded as proprietary, if not “Top Secret” within the Department of Defense and military. As a
result, the incentive to develop alternative energies and fuels for marine applications outside of
the military is not as strong.
However, as recently as 9 April 2009, the U.S. Navy has issued a Broad Agency
Announcement, reaching out to the commercial industry seeking assistance in developing energy
conservation techniques on board its Military Sealift Command vessels.

The BAA solicits innovative concepts from industry and academia that can
introduce applications for Navy shipboard energy conservation and

95
 carbon footprint reduction with the potential for rapid transition to Fleet
operation. The target segment of the Fleet is the ships operated by
Military Sealift Command: Combat Logistics Force, Auxiliaries, and
Sealift. The Navy may consider changes to shipboard operation, existing
products, modifications, or adaptations to existing products, or new
products where the concept can be integrated with appropriate ships
(Maritime Reporter, “Navy Solicits Energy Conservation Proposals”
2009).

This is a small, but important step in cooperation between the military and commercial
industry. The Military Sealift Command, as a civilian-manned link between the two sectors, can
be an integral avenue between military technology and its commercial application. Technologies
finding practical application in MSC vessels because of military research and development may
find widespread use among the commercial fleet.
The economics of limited budgets and constant scrutiny of companies’ profits by
shareholders severely restrict the research and development of energy and power alternatives in
the commercial marine sector. Instead, the focus of the United States maritime industry has been
on retrofitting existing technology with emission control systems. These systems are effective at
reducing emissions in the short term and are generally cheaper than renewable energies and
alternative fuels, particularly when considering that many of these alternatives have not yet been
perfected and require further research and development. It is, therefore, critical that any sincere
effort toward the revival of the U.S. Merchant Marine includes close cooperation between the
military and commercial sectors.

96
B. CHANGE FROM WITHIN

1. Proactive Industry Leadership

New legislation now requires or soon will require the environmental regulatory compliance
of the majority of world merchant vessels. As a result, companies around the world are
developing new technologies that either remove the majority of noxious emissions from vessel
power plants or utilize biofuels, nuclear energy, wind power, etc. that greatly reduce the need for
fossil fuel and can potentially eliminate toxic emissions altogether.
To this end, companies and countries outside of the United States have taken the initiative
in developing alternative energy sources that can soon see application in the marine sector. The
European Union is the world leader in hydrogen fuel cell technology, research and development,
and industrial application. Hydrogen fuel cells for transport applications are already being tested
throughout Europe (Rifkin 2007, p.13). However, these technologies are being applied almost
exclusively in land transportation such as trucks and passenger vehicles and in military
applications such as submarines. Europe is also one of the world’s leading producers of wind
energy and developing wind energy for marine use. As described earlier, companies such as
Germany’s SkySails utilize football field-sized parachutes to assist in the propulsion of large
merchant vessels. Wind-propelled or assisted vessels are also being developed that utilize
windmills and turbine rotors for propulsion. Still other companies in the EU are researching and
developing vessels that take advantage of solar power and wave motion to generate the needed
energy for propulsion.
Although solutions and technologies are already available that promise a cleaner
environment and greater efficiency for the marine industry, the expense of the changeover and
the perceived threat to workers and companies are creating a backlash. Likewise, U.S.
legislation that promotes the widespread use of such alternatives is labeled as unnecessary,
impractical, or economically unfeasible (Michaels 2002). This attitude within the industry is
reminiscent of the situation faced by the United States Merchant Marine at the advent of steam
propulsion and iron ships late in the nineteenth century, and again at the introduction of the
internal combustion engine in the twentieth century. In both instances, the U.S. disregarded
modern technology, choosing to remain ignorant of the changing state of world affairs. When
the government and marine industry finally decided to modernize, the U.S. Merchant Marine was

97
well behind the merchant fleets of the rest of the maritime nations. As a result, the industry
required heavy financial assistance to keep up and remain competitive in the world market—
financial assistance that it is still dependant on today.
There is no individual maritime nation ultimately rising to the challenge of the changeover
to green technologies within the global merchant fleet. Nor is any nation even taking a decisive
lead in the race toward limited or zero emissions. This is an area of opportunity for the United
States maritime industry, but it will require a new approach that will be seen as uncomfortable, at
the very least. Shipping companies must ignore the attraction of short-term gain and focus
instead on the long-term advantages of clean technologies such as wind, solar, hydrogen, and
nuclear power. These advantages may not show promise in the near future in terms of
profitability, but large investments now will pay huge dividends in the future. This is evidenced
already in the gains seen in green stocks and alternative energy futures (see Figure 21, p. 52). A
concerted effort by industry leaders to develop green technologies coupled with the projected
increase in shipping and vessel construction will lead to enormous future profits for companies
willing to make a relatively small sacrifice now. As the world shrinks due to advances in
communication such as the World Wide Web, industry action or inaction is becoming more
visible and even transparent. The human race is become much more aware of its impact on the
planet and companies’ sincere, earth-conscious efforts toward bettering the world situation are
resulting in improved public relations and increased revenue.
As with government legislation, an increased sense of stewardship must also permeate the
marine industry itself. The long-term gains that can be experienced in profits can be witnessed
in environmental areas as well. Stockholders will not be the only people to reap the rewards of
shipping companies’ efforts but future generations will, as well. The marine industry, as a major
contributor to water and atmospheric pollution, has an incredible responsibility to improve the
planet and preserve its resources for those who will follow.

2. The Will to Evolve

The maritime industry is in a constant state of flux. At no time will that change be more
dramatic than in the coming years and decades. Any changes that take place cannot occur
without a significant paradigm shift at critical levels in the industry, the most critical of which

98
are the men and women that staff and operate the nation’s merchant fleet. Unfortunately, this
aspect of change is difficult to address and is therefore rarely done.
Change has been very difficult for the marine industry in times past not only from the
perspective of technology, but more significantly from the perspective of mariners’ acceptance
of those technologies. New technologies and new methods incite fear in the hearts and minds of
many mariners—fear of failure at a job that they know well or worse, fear of obsolescence
(Carlopio 1988, p. 75). This fear may manifest itself in disdain for new technologies and those
that embrace them. “Wooden ships and iron men, iron ships and wooden men” was a sailor’s
aside during the switch from sail to steam and a phrase that reflected more than just the
diminution of a mariner’s physical prowess (King 2000, p. 3).
What has made this situation worse is the outdated position sometimes taken by seafaring
unions. Despite their best intentions, union efforts to preserve jobs in the face of changing
technologies have often done little more than stunt the growth of the industry and foster an
almost Luddite derision toward new opportunities for technological and experiential evolution.
This is not meant to besmirch the efforts that unions have made on behalf of seafarers all over
the world. Rather, it is to say that the application of new technologies poses challenges to
laborers and concerned parties, the ultimate ramifications of which are difficult to predict.

Technology is a problem and a source of frustration for Trade Unions…

A problem because the introduction of technology, with its accompanying
disruption of the workplace, creates the fears of employment instability;
potential health and safety hazards; and the degradation of skills through
routinization, regulation and simplification of work (Jones 1987, p. 144).

Each consecutive transition from one propulsion method to another and from one fuel
source to the next has had the ultimate consequence of offering a power source that has been
more efficient than its predecessor. Likewise, much like its cousin in the natural world,
technological evolution tends to leave behind those that cannot or, more accurately in this case,
will not adapt to changes. This is the evolution of technology and the natural consequence of
progression.
Nevertheless, it does not have to be as threatening as it is may be perceived. The nation
has addressed similar challenges in the past and has come out better for its efforts, but the will to
evolve has to come from within the industry. Government support and forward looking industry

99
leaders can only provide the catalyst for change. The evolution of the industry itself can only
come from within. By fostering the will to evolve within the marine community, this
challenging situation can be seen as an opportunity to grow in knowledge and skill and not just
as another step toward dehumanizing the marine industry.
The recent trend within the industry concerning technology has been to lower manning
requirements on board vessels, decreasing job numbers and in many cases lowering the
necessary qualifications of U.S. seamen. This is the concern of most mariners today and may be
a central cause of the fear of change within the industry. However, with the tremendous
technological upheaval of the New Industrial Revolution, these new propulsion methods promise
not only greater employment within the industry as a whole (see section, The U.S. Maritime
Industry as a Tool for Economic Recovery, below), but also promises potentially higher manning
requirements for complex propulsion plants, particularly in the case of nuclear power.
Furthermore, despite the changeover to alternate energy sources and propulsion methods the
skills already held and maintained by mariners in many cases can be directly transferred to
advanced plants with additional training. While fuel cell and nuclear technologies require
additional skills, training, and personnel, the steam turbine portion of the plant requires many of
the same skills as in a traditional boiler fired steam plant.
What the marine industry and nation cannot afford to do is attempt to stop progress in favor
of status quo. The current state of the marine industry and the nation’s economic situation is too
dire to ignore. What is more, the potential opportunities that are available are too great to
overlook. Whatever hardship will be experienced also offers exponential profit and benefits,
both economic and environmental.

There are some who believe that we must try to turn back the clock on this
new world; that the only chance to maintain our living standards is to
build a fortress around America; to stop trading with other countries, shut
down immigration, and rely on old industries. …Not only is it impossible
to turn back the tide of globalization, but efforts to do so can make us
worse off. …Rather than fear the future, we must embrace it. I have no
doubt that America can compete – and succeed – in the 21st century. And
I know as well that more than anything else, success will depend not on
our government, but on the dynamism, determination, and innovation of
the American people (Obama, Renewing American Competitiveness, 2008,
p. 2).

100
 The U.S. Merchant Mariners must be willing to accept change as an opportunity to learn
new skills, and the companies that they work for must be willing to provide the necessary
support toward the growth of their employees with funding for increased training and education.
It is, therefore, only with understanding and perhaps a certain amount of sympathy that
government, industry, unions, and management can address this issue and assure affected
personnel that the purpose of technological progress is not to eliminate the human element, but
rather to make its pursuits easier and its impact on the world more positive.

3. The Education and Training of Industry Leaders

A revolution in propulsion technology and energy sources will likewise require a

revolution in the education and training of current and future industry leaders. This requirement
revolves around the programming and funding of the United States Merchant Marine Academy
and the six state maritime academies. The education and training programs at these academies
are dedicated to the professional development of licensed mariners. More importantly, they are
dedicated to the development of tomorrow’s industry leaders, who must be prepared for work
within an intermodal transportation system of growing scale and complexity.
Within the transportation industry is the growing trend toward green technologies.
Currently, the educational programs of the state and federal maritime institutions consist
primarily of programs committed to traditional power plants. All of the maritime academies
have made efforts in recent years toward establishing alternative energy programs. The U.S.
Merchant Marine Academy attempted to develop an energy program concentrating on clean,
alternative energy sources, launching the first of its kind Alternative Power Program in 2004.
While the program did not succeed, the Academy continues to offer alternative energy courses.
In recent history, the willingness of maritime educational institutions to wholeheartedly
accept and adopt new technologies has been a reflection of the attitude of the marine industry
itself. For example, internal combustion engine theory and practice have been taught at these
institutions since the technology was found practical for marine applications. However,
concentration on the subject was not present until the diesel engine found widespread use in the
industry in the 1970s and 1980s (gmats.usmma.edu).
Taking an important lesson from the development and adoption of internal combustion
engine, funding, and support for programs such as the Merchant Marine Academy’s Alternative

101
Power Program is critical for the research and development of alternative energies and their
application in the marine industry. Increased funding and legislative support dedicated to the
development of alternative energy programs within the federal and state academies’
undergraduate and graduate programs is of the utmost importance for the growth and expansion
of the entire industry.
Nuclear power, fuel cells, etc. will soon find widespread use in the maritime industry. It is
therefore up to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and its state counterparts to take the reigns
early and develop an educational program that will adequately produce the future leaders that the
maritime industry will require to take advantage of the sweeping changes that will be seen in the
decades to come. Of equal importance is the continuing education of maritime industry
professionals, both licensed and unlicensed. Continuing education programs such as the
curriculum developed early on at the U.S.M.M.A. have demonstrated their effectiveness in such
areas as early as the 1960s, when the Academy was tasked with developing a training program
for the N.S. Savannah. This program has since grown into the Global Maritime and
Transportation School (GMATS), established in 1999 (ibid.).

The primary mission of the USMMA Global Maritime and Transportation

School is to offer leading edge education and training programs that will
benefit professionals from the maritime and transportation industry
(private-sector, military, and government). Through its education,
training and research initiatives, the USMMA GMATS is dedicated to
optimizing America’s economic and strategic intermodal transportation
system and its global transportation interests (ibid.).

At this time, the GMATS program is dedicated to the training of maritime professionals
with particular concentration in military, licensing, and industry-specific training such as “steam
and diesel engine operations and repair to shipboard electronic control systems, pump
maintenance, engineering management and practical economics and management for port
engineers” (ibid.).
While these courses and programs offer leading edge training and education in existing
technologies and shipboard systems, more emphasis must be placed on research and
development of alternatives. However, with any such program, funding is essential. GMATS
and programs like it are “non-appropriated fund instrumentalities” (NAFIs). NAFIs are funded

102
without direct government funding and are instead supported by funding earned through tuition
and fees to students and private companies and organizations (ibid.).
Such programs are essential for the training and, at times, re-training of marine
professionals. To insure that GMATS and programs like it grow and develop, and continue to
educate industry professionals to be better equipped for a constantly changing maritime industry,
continued funding for more varied programming is critical.

4. National and Industry Involvement in a Global Concern

The solution to the current situation faced by the United States Merchant Marine will be
based upon a multi-pronged approach that satisfies industry needs as well as taking into
consideration the changing state of the world in the face of increased environmental awareness
and environmental legislation. However, most importantly, the needs of the global environment
must be put on par with other, national concerns. National security, industrial development, and
economic growth are, of course, critical to the future of the United States. However, these are of
only secondary importance in comparison to the ultimate goal of providing a clean planet for
future generations of world citizens.
The hardest drive toward new, non-fossil fuel alternatives is almost exclusively restricted to
the military sector with the focus being primarily on speed for the purpose of projection of
power. Nevertheless, new propulsion technologies and vessel developments, regardless of the
purpose of design can benefit the commercial sector. Even then, however, the designs would be
exploited for speed for the purpose of delivery of goods. Efficiency and decreased
environmental impact would be almost incidental. A different perspective must be taken before
any advancement and developments will have a lasting and significant impact on the world. This
increased sense of stewardship is vital to the transition from fossil fuel to cleaner energy sources.
The fight for the environment of the planet is a war of the first order. It envelopes every
industrial sector of every nation. Therefore, any efforts toward winning the national battle
espoused by the United States Merchant Marine is worthy of the full support of the government
and military. This battle can be won, like so many before it by American ingenuity and industry.

[B]y devising a coherent strategy that mixes short-term solutions with

farsighted goals, combines government activism with private sector
enterprise and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without

103
 major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate
change and ensure the survival of our way of life for future generations.
Think …of the overnight conversion of the World War II industrial sector
into a vast machine capable of churning out 60,000 tanks and 300,000
planes, [not to mention, approximately 5,000 ships] an effort that not only
didn’t bankrupt the nation but instead made it rich and powerful beyond
its imagining and –oh, yes—won the war in the process (Walsh 2008, p.
46).

The full ramifications of fossil fuel use are arguable, with the health and environmental
risks of its utilization hotly debated among scholars and industry leaders alike. However, the
ultimate consequences of clean energy production are undeniable—cleaner air and water. Fossil
fuel has a tremendous grip on the maritime industry, but there are fuel and power options that
provide inherently cleaner solutions. These alternatives, although available, have not found
widespread use in the maritime industry. The reasons for this are numerous but the
overwhelming reason is money. Companies are not willing to invest in technologies whose cost
benefit is long term rather than providing instant positive results to the bottom line. There is no
quick return on investment for the conversion of existing propulsion methods to newer, cleaner
ones. Rather, the investment of time and money into alternatives is an investment in the future,
the future of the industry, the nation, and the world. When environments, governments, and
economies succeed or fail based on the cost of a barrel of petroleum, it becomes imperative that
government and industry leaders impart upon their nations, companies, and themselves a sense
of stewardship and responsibility. Therefore, the United States as a nation of global citizens
needs to examine and consider the potential opportunities those new propulsion technologies
may provide. What is more, the nation must support global legislation such as the Kyoto
Protocol that, although admittedly flawed, sets increasingly higher standards for nations and their
industries. The end goal of such legislation is a cleaner world with a greater standard of living
for every person.
The quest for cleaner energy alternatives is a global struggle and not merely a concern of
the United States. As a result, it is important that an attitude within the marine industry be
developed that fosters cooperation between the governments and marine industries of many
nations. With the United States Merchant Marine leading the way toward the maritime industry
of the future, the nation can share that knowledge with the international maritime industry and

104
merchant fleets. Once this is established, an open exchange of ideas can be conducted for the
betterment of maritime nations across the globe.
The decline of the national maritime industry is regretful and ultimately dangerous to the
country’s safety, security, and prosperity. However, it has also led us to a period of
unprecedented opportunity. The world is in the midst of a New Industrial Revolution that will
see the changeover from the oil based world economy to cleaner, more Earth-friendly green
technologies. By combining the American “can do” attitude with a renewed sense of
stewardship toward Earth’s resources, the U.S. Merchant Marine can jump to the forefront of the
marine industry and experience an era of prosperity that could far outshine its “Golden Age” a
century and-a-half ago. The nation can lead the way toward a greener future for the marine
industry and the entire world.

105
VI. ECONOMICS AND OPPORTUNITIES

They don’t give us an alternative

if they can’t make money out of it.
∼The Casualties, Without Warning

A. THE ADVANTAGES OF AN ALTERNATIVE MERCHANT MARINE

1. Green with Envy: Setting an Example for the Transportation Industry

As noted earlier, the world merchant fleet annually carries over ninety percent of the
world’s trade tonnage by volume and sixty percent by value (Steinberg 2001, p.14, and
International Maritime Organization 2005, p.2). Despite such an overwhelming percentage of
world trade carried in their holds, the vessels of the world merchant marine account for very little
of the transportation sector’s energy use. For this reason, marine transportation, on a per ton
basis, is the most fuel-efficient means for transporting goods. Using the same ton-mile
comparison, particulate emissions of marine cargo vessels are far less than those of other
transportation methods (ibid., p.3).
This is particularly apparent in the comparison between inland and near-coastal waterways
versus overland transportation. As seen in Figures 51 and 52 below, comparing the fuel usage
and particulate emissions of the three major modes of inland transportation, marine
transportation is not only a much more efficient means of goods transport, but also releases far
less toxic substances and particulate matter into the atmosphere in comparison to overland
transportation.

Figure 51: Ton-miles traveled per gallon of fuel (Trauthwein 2008, p. 24).

106
 Figure 52: Emissions comparison between the major modes of
transportation (Trauthwein 2008, p. 28).

The same applies to international transport by comparing ocean going vessels and air
transportation. According to data collected by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2001,
airlines, both certified carriers and general aviation, transported approximately six million short
tons of international cargo at the cost of over fifteen billion gallons of fuel. The same year,
waterborne trade accounted for more than one and a quarter billion short tons of international
cargo while burning approximately eight and-a-half billion gallons of fuel (U.S. Department of
Transportation 2008). This equates to approximately seven short tons of cargo per gallon of fuel
for the airline industry compared to almost 2,500 short tons per gallon in waterborne trade.

Figure 53: Diesel particulate matter from goods movement (Garrett 2008, p. 4).

107
 Nevertheless, studies such as those conducted by Dr. Corbett continue to point out the
increasingly negative effect that the marine industry has on the environment. As noted earlier
and shown again in Figure 53 studies predict that at the current rate of growth, ships will soon
surpass overland transportation for diesel engine-produced particulate matter dumped into the
atmosphere. Without the implementation of environmental legislation and other limitations for
marine-based transportation similar to those applied to land-based transportation, the marine
industry will very soon lose an important favorable edge in terms of its environmental impact.
The adoption and application of new green technologies in the marine industry can serve a
multipurpose goal of capitalizing on the industry’s already limited ecological impact in
comparison to other modes of transport while at the same time mitigating the undeniable damage
that it is causing to the environment.

108
B. NATIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

1. The U.S. Merchant Marine and National Energy Security

The years 2008 and 2009 saw the nation and world experience a deep recession that rivaled
the Great Depression of the early twentieth century. The skyrocketing fuel prices that
accompanied the economic downturn and the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East renewed
interest in the energy security of the United States. This “renewed” interest has been a central
concern according to every presidential administration of the United States since the economic
turmoil of the 1970s. President Richard Nixon famously declared in January of 1974, “Let this
be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be
dependent on any other country for the energy we need… to keep our transportation moving"
(Bailey 2004). Every administration since that time has echoed similar concerns, if only to pay
lip service to the growing ranks of the environmentally conscious.
Currently, however, two areas of vital national interest are intersecting for what is arguably
the first time, creating a climate of change that is more favorable to advancing the cause of
energy independence. The voice of environmental concerns is louder than ever. With increasing
research data and scientific opinion supporting the claims that human industry is leading to
severe environmental damage, world opinion is increasingly critical of the negative impact of
fossil fuels. The U.S. involvement in the Middle East and the increasing instability of
governments in the area are further amplifying the call for energy independence. The marine
industry plays a pivotal role in these volatile public and political concerns. As the primary artery
for the transport of fossil fuels, is at the center of the energy security and independence debate.
The term “security” takes on a two-fold meaning in this discussion. The primary definition
regards the security of the nation’s energy supply. As described in detail earlier, the world
population is growing exponentially. The hand-in-hand growth in energy demand is currently
being satisfied by petroleum. However, as world production decreases in relation to that
demand, political tensions increase. The United States hopes to continue its industrial and
commercial growth, but cannot do so if energy restrictions choke the necessary fuel supply.
Secondly, the term “security” also encompasses a much more tangible threat to the United
States. The ever-increasing size of the world merchant fleet not only raises concerns regarding
fossil fuel consumption and pollution but also the general security of the world’s ports and

109
shipping lanes. Following the attacks of 11 September 2001, the ports of the United States have
experienced increasing concerns and criticism regarding security against possible terrorist
strikes. Petroleum product tankers and their offloading ports are seen as especially attractive
targets. Public perception of the threat posed by security breeches involving these vessels and
port areas, particularly in regard to LNG carriers, is that an attack using a vessel as a weapon
would be the near equivalent of a nuclear assault on U.S. soil.
The utilization of power and energy alternatives can assist in relieving both of these
concerns. Research and serious investment in cleaner alternatives to traditional fuel and energy
sources for the United States Merchant Marine is a step toward energy independence for the
entire nation. The development of these alternatives within the U.S. maritime industry can lead
to the emergence of new power sources that do not require petroleum, fossil fuel that must be
supplied by outside nations. Furthermore, alternative energies that are fed from non-traditional
sources such as nuclear and pure hydrogen fuel cells will not require tankships full of volatile
hydrocarbons that can be used as weapons within our ports.

2. The U.S. Maritime Industry as a Tool for Economic Recovery

The U.S. Merchant Marine finds itself at a critical juncture. The decline of the marine
industry in the United States has been unmistakable. Currently, the world’s international
overseas trade is carried predominantly in foreign-flagged vessels and, as noted in Figures 54
and 56, the nation’s share of the world merchant fleet has been in a drastic decline for over four
decades.

Figure 54: U.S. share of world shipping fleet (U.S. Department of Transportation 2000, p. 206).

110
 By championing the cause of green energies and demonstrating its environmental
awareness by lessening its impact on the planet, the nation’s marine industry can take advantage
of the unprecedented opportunities that are currently available. The changing world attitude
toward fossil fuel and its impact on the environment does not have to decimate the U.S.
Merchant Marine. Rather, it can promise a new, unprecedented chance at a renaissance for the
entire industry and the nation as a whole.
The inland and near coastal maritime sector are providing positive signs for the marine
industry as well as the economy as a whole. In the United States, the domestic portion of the
maritime industry currently employs approximately 150,000 people in the building and
maintenance of the Jones Act fleet (U.S. DOT, A Vision for the 21st Century, 2007, p. 7). This
sector of the industry has added over 6,000 jobs in the years 2001 to 2006 (Maritime
Administration 2007).
As industries are becoming more aware of the efficiency of waterborne transportation
(addressed above) shipping on domestic waterways is becoming more popular. This United
States Department of Transportation is promoting the use of inland and coastal waterways for
transporting domestic cargo, throwing its support behind the Maritime Administration’s
“America’s Marine Highway Program” (46 CFR Part 393), an act that promises some relief from
the highway and general infrastructure congestion costing the nation over two-hundred billion
dollars annually (Department of Transportation 2008).

Figure 55: International marine industry growth (Westwood, Opportunities &

Challenges for the Marine Industry, 2005).

111
 The international shipping industry, in the meantime, is experiencing an increase in
virtually every aspect, as illustrated in Figure 55. While the current growth within the industry is
not as robust as was predicted in these graphs, the marine industry has been and will continue to
grow exponentially to fulfill the increasing world demand for raw and manufactured goods even
in the face of economic crises.

Figure 56: Number and size of the U.S. flag merchant fleet and its share of the world fleet
(1,000 gross tons and over) (RITA 2002, downloaded from www.bts.gov).

At the same time, however, the United States’ share of the international portion of the
industry has experienced an overall decline of 14.1 percent, or approximately 2,000 jobs

112
(Maritime Administration 2007). What is more, of the approximately 212,000 licensed mariners
in the United States, the average age of those holding Master’s licenses is approximately 51 and
the age of licensed Chief Engineers averaging 50 (Cummings 2008).
The United States can help reverse the current economic downturn and spur growth of the
nation’s merchant marine and marine industry by supporting the development of new propulsion
technologies, particularly transitional technologies. It is in combining the need for global trade
with the demand for an environmentally conscious means of supplying it that the United States
Merchant Marine will find unprecedented opportunities. The U.S. maritime industry can thus
become pivotal in the nation’s economic recovery. By supporting the research and development
of new technologies and the retooling that the industry will require implementing it the maritime
industry, both domestic and international, can provide hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of
jobs in the merchant marine and supporting industries. Furthermore, by becoming the leader in
applying these methods to the marine industry, the U.S. would open impressive opportunities
globally in assisting other nations to follow suit.
By adopting new propulsion technologies today, the world marine industry can take
advantage of its already limited environmental impact relative to other modes of transportation.
Specifically, the United States government and maritime industry, by adopting some of the
innovative attitude of their nineteenth century predecessors, can usher in a new “golden age” for
the merchant marine that can have a positive impact, on not only the United States, but also other
maritime nations and the world as a whole.

113
VII. CONCLUSIONS

A voice from the tube says the boat’s gotta move

Can we do it?
“WE CAN DO IT!”
In the engine room, hey-oh!
∼Mike Watt, In the Engine Room

A. APPROACHING BOTTOM DEAD CENTER

The Industrial Revolution that spanned the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries resulted in
great advances in technology and manufacturing techniques that changed the world. For the
maritime industry, the switch from sail to steam begun during this period ushered in an era of
unprecedented technological development that would continue well into the twentieth century,
with the introduction of new concepts in propulsion such as the marine diesel engine and gas
turbine.
The response of the United States maritime industry to these new developments was timid
at best. In the mid-1800s, the U.S. Merchant Marine and shipbuilding industry eschewed the
opportunities presented by steam power and iron-hulled vessels for the security of quick and
sleek, but soon-to-be outdated wooden ship designs. The drive of the Civil War and the latter
half of the Industrial Revolution pushed the United States to adopt steam power into its maritime
industry. Further advancements in propulsion, such as the internal combustion engine, were
similarly adopted in the U.S. because of war-driven technology during the First and Second
World Wars, though long after these developments were espoused by other maritime nations.
Throughout the nation’s history, the actions of its government, Merchant Marine, and Navy
have created an apprehensive, “wait and see” attitude toward revolutionary advancements in the
marine industry. This is particularly true of marine propulsion technology, most notably the
switch to steam power late in the Industrial Revolution and the adoption of the internal
combustion engine in the latter part of the twentieth century. Over the course of one and-a-half
centuries, this approach has led to the degradation of the U.S. Merchant Marine to its current
state.

114
B. A NEW GOLDEN AGE FOR THE U.S. MERCHANT MARINE?

Although it was sluggish and myopic in its implementation of many of these developments,
the U.S. maritime industry also showed tremendous foresight and technological daring at times.
Steamships such as Clermont and Savannah, both built in the United States, introduced the
steamship to the world maritime industry while the U.S. Merchant Marine’s adoption of the fuel
oil-fired boiler during World War I revolutionized the entire industry. Since that time,
individuals and companies within the U.S. maritime industry have continued to make
advancements in marine propulsion technology, daring to experiment in areas untouched by
others and continuously improving upon developments introduced elsewhere. The Nuclear Ship
Savannah, like its steam-powered namesake was the commercial application of a nearly limitless
source of power that was previously viewed by the majority of people as ultimately destructive.
Thanks to the efforts made by the U.S. government to fund the project, the U.S. Merchant
Marine Academy in training the vessel’s personnel, and private enterprise, nuclear fission energy
may still prove to be a revolutionary power source in the commercial marine industry.
Despite the courage and ingenuity found within the industry at times, the U.S. Merchant
Marine has rarely been able to capitalize on the resulting potential. However, the marine
industry has not always been at fault for its inability to take advantage of the opportunities it was
presented. The U.S. government has been reluctant to provide the necessary support for the
growth and development of new technologies within the industry. Outdated legislation and
policies have quelled the spirit of competition within the shipbuilding sector and merchant
marine to the point of halting the evolution of the country’s entire maritime industry.
Throughout the 150 years that have followed the Industrial Revolution fossil fuel, the
lifeblood of industrialization, coursed underneath the surface of the marine industry and the
entire world economy. Coal drove the Industrial Revolution and led to the developments that
would mechanize the industrialized world. Edwin Drake’s 1859 well in Pennsylvania launched
the crude oil industry in the United States that would transform the entire marine industry and the
world serviced by it. Since that time, the world has become addicted, and the modern global
economy now runs on fossil fuel.
Today, however, the world is witnessing the beginning of the New Industrial Revolution.
This revolution will eventually result in the replacement of fossil fuel as the major source of

115
energy for many sectors of the industrialized world. Like the Industrial Revolution that preceded
it, the New Industrial Revolution promises to usher in a period of technological development that
will greatly affect the entire world and alter the marine industry for generations to come.
New studies being released are linking tens of thousands of deaths per year to the emissions
from marine vessels. Future studies will more than likely confirm these findings and continue to
point out threats that emissions pose to populations as well as the environment. However, the
technology is being developed that can reduce these threats. Solar power, biofuels, wind energy,
etc. are alternative energy sources that are already available and can drastically reduce emissions
if used in place of, or even in conjunction with fossil fuel. The threat of noxious emissions and
oil spills can be greatly reduced if not eliminated altogether.

Figure 57: Fuel, movie promotional poster (www.thefuelfilm.com).

Energy alternatives for the marine and land-based industries are available and being
implemented around the world, but there is no one among the maritime nations standing up and
taking the leading role. The United States maritime industry has an opportunity before it now
that it cannot afford to pass up. Because of opportunities overlooked in the past, the industry has
been in a steep decline for several decades. By championing green technology and the New
Industrial Revolution, the country’s marine and land-based industries can be weaned from their
fossil fuel dependence, resulting in not only a cleaner environment for the future, but in greater
energy independence for the entire United States economy.
A conscious effort today could usher in an era of unparalleled opportunity for the country’s
marine industry and the nation as a whole. However, it will take the combined effort of the
government and the maritime sector to make it happen. The U.S. Merchant Marine has been
dependent on ineffective government subsidies for almost two hundred years. These subsidies
have done little to encourage active improvement in technology and efficiency, much less in
experimentation with alternative energy sources. New legislation is required that will promote
non-traditional (renewable and nuclear) energies and propulsion methods and reward companies

116
that have the courage and foresight to experiment with new technologies. The New Industrial
Revolution will be accompanied by a massive paradigm shift. As a result, it will require
considerable and unavoidable growing pains. Everyone from industry leaders to mariners
themselves must have courage and fortitude in the face of the sweeping changes that need to
occur within the industry.
The future of the world’s maritime industry is here today and its success lies in the
industry’s willingness to embrace new technologies. By taking the lead in implementing the
necessary solutions, the United States Merchant Marine can once again become an industry
leader and set an example for the rest of the world to follow.

117
 Whereof what’s past is prologue,
What to come in yours and my discharge.
Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act II, Scene 1

It has to start somewhere, it

it has to start sometime.
What better place than here?
What better time than now?
Rage Against the Machine, Guerrilla Radio

118
APPENDIX: NOTES AND CALCULATIONS

119
 The tables and calculations contained in the following pages serve as examples of the

calculations used in the previous sections, as referenced. They are constructed as an economic

comparison between several different power plant installations on board various vessels. These

calculations and notes are included for comparison only and are based on general averages for

fuel prices, plant and installation costs, and manning requirements. They are based on current

data as well as on data obtained and calculations made as directed from class notes and lectures

by Prof. Alan Rowan (Rowan 2007).

The first set of calculations compare Panamax bulk carriers built as sister ships. The first

vessel is built with a MAN B&W 7L60MC seven cylinder diesel engine at an installed

maximum continuous rating (MCR) of 11,580bkW at 106 rpm. The second and third vessels

have slow speed, five cylinder Wärtsilä RTA68 diesel engines, each with a base MCR of

11,370bkW at a lower propeller speed of 76 rpm. The third vessel, however, will use an

attached generator (power take off generator) for fuel savings. While the attached generator does

not make the engine itself more efficient, its use saves fuel by sparing the regular ship’s service

diesel generators during transit times while the main engine is in use. Finally, the fourth

installation will utilize two six-cylinder MaK M 43C engines, rated at 12,000bkW at 500 rpm

with an output propeller speed of 76 rpm via reduction gears. Again, an attached generator will

be installed to reduce fuel consumption during transit times.

The calculations contained in the subsequent sections also compare biofuel usage with

fossil fuels to demonstrate the economic impact of the increased fuel requirement for biofuels.

Traditional power plants are also compared to marine gas turbines.

Also included in the following comparison are the initial costs and yearly operating costs of

used vessels. The main point of including used vessels for the purpose of this study is so that the

120
analysis of refitted power plants may also be applied to a used vessel, greatly reducing the

overall cost of these vessels. While this is not applicable in every situation, it is an option that

must be included in such a cost/benefit analysis. Used vessels provide another way of dealing

with the situation faced by marine companies today. These vessels are, of course, cheaper to

purchase than a new build and can result in great money savings and profitability over a short

period of time. As an added “benefit,” these vessels can many times be grandfathered in to an

exempt status when considering relatively new rules and regulations that new builds must adhere

to. A used vessel, regardless of efficiency-increasing ancillary equipment such as power take-off

generators can experience an increased profitability totaling as much as two million dollars

(Verenium Corporation 2008, below and following calculations). However, a negative

consequence of a used vessel purchase is a decreased period of profitable use of the vessel due to

its already advanced age. In addition, companies purchasing used vessels may become victims

of their own petard, ultimately having to adhere to regulations that the older vessels were

purchased for the purpose of avoiding, resulting in increased operating and maintenance costs

that were not originally considered.

121
DISTILLATE / HEAVY FUEL: TRADITIONAL POWER PLANT VS. PLANT WITH ATTACHED
GENERATOR

122
 MAIN TABLE Used Vessel
Main Engine 7L60MC 5RTA68 5RTA68+PTOG 2xM43C+GDG
Generating Plant SSDG SSDG SSDG/PTOG SSDG/GDG
RPM @ Match Point 106 76 76 76
Change in Propeller Efficiency (%) N/A 7.5 7.5 7.5
skW, for Average Service Speed
Gear Efficiency (%) N/A N/A N/A 98.5
PTO or GDG skW N/A N/A
Other PTO, HP or % N/A N/A
M.E. bkW, Service 9,840 9,130 9,660 9,810
M.E. bkW, Rated 11,580 11,370 11,370 12,000
% MCR in Service 85 85 85 85
Plant Cost ($1000) 16,400 18,900 18,900 15,600
Ship Cost ($1000) 37,500 40,000 40,000 36,700 10,000
Mortgage (% Interest) 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5
Years 12 12 12 12 12
CRF 0.1226 0.1226 0.1226 0.1226 0.1226
Fuel, M.E. IF380 IF380 IF380 IF180
PUB SFC (g/bkW-hr) 168 164 165 176
Sea: kWe 480 480 480 480
Source SSDG SSDG PTOG PTOG
Generator Fuel Distillate Distillate Distillate Distillate
Port: kWe 250 250 250 250
Source SSDG SSDG SSDG SSDG
Metric Tons/Day, M.E. 44.2 39.9 42.4 45.7
Metric Tons/Day, Gen., at Sea 2.4 2.4 0 0
Metric Tons/Day, in Port 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
DWT, Metric Tons 65,000 65,042 65,046 64,882
Fuel Carried/Voyage, Metric Tons 1,680 1,526 1,531 1,648
Miscellaneous DWT 500 500 500 500
Cargo DWT 64,300 64,412 64,403 64,449 64,300
Voyages/Year 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Cargo/Year 578,700 579,705 579,625 580,045 578,700
Annual Cost, Year 1 ($1000)
Mortgage 4,598 4,904 4,904 4,499 1,226
Fuel at Sea 4,320 3,941 3,753 4,561 4,536
Fuel in Port 49 49 49 49 51
Lubricating Oil 212 200 197 199 223
Machinery Maintenance 249 221 215 456 299
Hull Maintenance 750 750 750 750 1,125
Crew & Subsistence 1,799 1,799 1,799 1,799 1,979
Insurance 750 800 800 734 750
Port Fees & Administration 750 750 750 750 900
TOTALS
Annual Total $13,500 $13,400 $13,200 $13,800 $11,100
RFR $23.33 $23.12 $22.77 $23.79 $19.18
Difference, RFR to Best $0.55 $0.34 $0.00 $1.02 -$3.59
Profit/Year
$2,100,000

123
 VOYAGE CALCULATION
ONE-WAY DISTANCE, NAUTICAL MILES 5500
AVERAGE SERVICE SPEED, LOAD/BALAST 14.5/15.2

LOADED VOYAGE (DAYS) 152.3

DISCHARGE PORT 38.5
BALLAST VOYAGE (DAYS) 145.3
LOADING PORT 28.9
CANAL PASSAGE 0

DAYS/ROUND VOYAGE 37.9

SEA DAYS/VOYAGE 30.9
PORT & CANAL DAYS/VOYAGE 7

VOYAGES/YEAR 9.6
SEA DAYS/YEAR 285
PORT DAYS/YEAR 65

124
 CREW & SUBSISTENCE COSTS
Number Current Wage & O.T. TOTAL ($1000/YEAR)
MASTER 1 80 80
CHIEF ENGINEER 1 77 77
CHIEF MATE/SECOND ENGINEER 2 60 120
SECOND MATE 1 45 45
THIRD MATE/THIRD ENGINEER 2 40 80
CADETS 2 5 10
AB/QMED/COOK 5 20 100
OS/MESS 4 16 64
SPARES 4
TOTAL, CURR 22 576
VACATION RELIEF (multiply total by 1.5) 864
HEALTH, PENSIONS, OVERHEADS (multiply previous line by 1.5) 1,296
SUBSISTENCE, $/PERSON-DAY 25 201
CREW & SUBSISTENCE, CURR 1,497
CREW & SUBSISTENCE, YEAR 1 1,684
COMM AND BONUSES 115
TOTAL CREW AND SUBSISTENCE, YEAR 1 1,799
TOTAL: $1,798,844

PLANT WEIGHT, METRIC TONS

ENGINE 7L60MC 5RTA68 5RTA68+PTOG 2xM43C+GDG
ENGINE, GEAR 400 412 412 272
SHAFTS, BEARINGS (RATIO TO D**2) 65 77 80 83
PROPELLER + SPARES (RATIO D**3) 40 51 51 52
BOILERS, UPTAKES 25 25 25 25
GENERATORS 30 30 30 30
OTHER AUXILIARIES 120 120 120 120
SWITCHBOARDS, CONSOLES 20 20 20 20
CONTAINED LIQUIDS 50 50 50 50

SUBTOTAL (METRIC TONS) 750 785 788 652

FOUNDATIONS, PIPING, CABLING, PLATFORMS, ACCS, OVERHAUL (20%) 150 157 158 130

TOTAL (METRIC TONS) 900 942 946 782

DIFFERENCE FROM BASE 0 42 46 -118
ADJUSTED DWT 65000 65042 65046 64882

125
 L.O. COST
7L60MC 5RTA68 5RTA68+PTOG 2xM43C+GDG
bkW/mSHP, SERVICE 9840 9130 9660 9810
SLOC, g/bkW-hr 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3
DAYS/YEAR AT SEA 285 285 285 285
METRIC TONS/YEAR, MAIN ENGINES 74 69 73 74
PORT & AT PORT & AT
SSDG USE PORT PORT
SEA SEA
DAYS/YEAR AT SEA 285 285 285 285
SEA LOAD, kWe 480 480 0 0
DAYS/YEAR IN PORT 65 65 65 65
PORT LOAD, kWe 250 250 250 250
SSDG SLOC, g/kWe-hr 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
METRIC TONS/YEAR, SSDG 5.9 5.9 0.6 0.6
METRIC TONS/YEAR, MISC. 5 5 5 5
TOTAL L.O., METRIC TONS/YEAR 85 79.9 78.6 79.6
AVERAGE L.O. COST, $/METRIC TON, PRESENT 2500 2500 2500 2500
AVERAGE L.O. COST, $/METRIC TON, YEAR 1 2500 2500 2500 2500
$/YEAR, $1000, YEAR 1 212 200 197 199
TOTAL: $212,000 $199,750 $196,500 $199,000

SENSITIVITY TO ACQUISITION COST

7L60MC 5RTA68 5RTA68+PTOG 2xM43C+GDG
SHIP COST ($1000) 37,500 40,000 40,000 36,700
PLANT COST ($1000) 16,400 18,900 18,900 15,600
CARGO/YEAR 578,700 579,705 579,625 580,045
dRFR/dSC, e-7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
∆RFR TO BEST 0.55 0.34 0.00 1.02
REQUIRED ∆SC ($1000) 2,251.5 1,389.8 0.0 4,140.5
REQUIRED ∆SC, % SHIP COST 6.0% 3.5% 0.0% 11.3%

SENSITIVITY TO M.E. SFC

7L60MC 5RTA68 5RTA68+PTOG 2xM43C+GDG
M.E. bkW, SERVICE 9,840 9,130 9,660 9,810
PUBLISHED SFC, g/bkW-h 168 164 165 176
SFC, SERVICE 187 182 183 194
CARGO/YEAR 578,700 579,705 579,625 580,045
dRFR/dSFC 0.036 0.033 0.035 0.034
∆RFR TO BEST 0.55 0.34 0.00 1.02
REQUIRED REDUCTION IN SFC (SERVICE), g/bkW-h 15 10 0 30
REQUIRED REDUCTION IN SFC (PUBLISHED), g/bkW-h 14 9 0 28

126
 PLANT COST

DATE MACHINERY ORDERED: 07/01/07

ENGINE 7L60MC 5RTA68 5RTA69+PTOG 2x6M43C+GDG

bkW or mSHP @ MCR 11580 10750 11350 12000
HIGHEST MCR OF ENGINE 13440 15650 15650 12000
PROPELLER RPM 106 76 76 76
$/bkW, (MSD WITH GEAR) 585 585 585 550
SSDG: NUMBER 3 3 2 2
SSDG: RATING, kWe 615 615 615 615
SSDG COST, $/kWe 525 525 525 525
PTOG OR TG: RATING, kWe 0 0 500 500
PTOG: $/kWe 0 0 750 750
COST, k$
M.E., GR & THRUST 7862 9155 9155 6600
PROPELLERS, SHAFTS, BEARINGS; ADJ FM LSD 1460 1838 1850 1892
PUMPS, HES, SEPS, COMPS@1/7 ME@INST 968 1308 1308 1003
PTOG OR TG 0 0 375 375
SSDG COST 969 969 646 646
AUX OFB, WHB, COND & FEED SYSTEM 120 120 120 120
AUTOMATION, CONTROLS, CONSOLES, SWITCHBOARDS 1200 1200 1200 1200
HULL AUXILIARIES 1000 1000 1000 1000

SUBTOTAL 13579 15590 15654 12836

15% FOR PIPING, FNDNS, TANKS, WIRING, ACCESS, OVERHAULING, UPTAKES 2037 2339 2348 1925
ENGINEERING CHARGE, EACH OF THREE 0 33 33 67
5% YARD PROFIT 781 898 902 741

ESTIMATED COST TO OWNER ($1000) 16,400 18,900 18,900 15,600

TOTAL: $16,400,000 $18,900,000 $18,900,000 $15,600,000

127
 FUEL COST
A.) FUEL UNIT COST
LIGHT DISTILLATE IF180 IF380 RESIDUAL
% DISTILLATE 100 14 6 0
% RESIDUAL 0 86 94 100
LHV, kJ/kg 42700 40000 39600 39400
$/METRIC TON, DELIVERED, PRESENT 600 350 310 290
PROJECTED INFLATION (%/YEAR) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
$/METRIC TON, AVERAGE, YEAR 1 600 350 310 290
B.) MAIN ENGINE CONSUMPTION
ENGINE 7L60MC 5RTA68 5RTA68+PTOG 2xM43C+GDG
bkW/mSHP, SERVICE (DSL/STM) 9840 9130 9660 9810
PUBLISHED SFC, g/bkW-hr (lb/mSHP-hr) 168 164 165 176
HEATING VALUE OF TEST BED FUEL 42700 42700 42700 42700
HEATING VALUE OF FUEL TO BE USED 39600 39600 39600 40000
MANUFACTURER'S TOL ON SFC (%) 3 3 3 5
SFC, SERVICE (LHV & TOL, DSLS) 187 182 183 194
MTPD IN SERVICE 44.2 39.9 42.4 45.7
DAYS/YEAR AT SEA 285 285 285 285
MT/YEAR 12600 11379 12105 13032
$/YEAR, $1000, YEAR 1 3906 3527 3753 4561
C.) ELECTRICAL GENERATING PLANT CONSUMPTION
SOURCE, SEA/PORT SSDG SSDG PTOG/SSDG GDG/SSDG
kWe, SEA 480 480 480 480
kWe, PORT 250 250 250 250
SSDG SFC, g/kWe 210 210 210 210
MTPD, SEA 2.4 2.4 0 0
MTPD, PORT 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
DAYS/YEAR AT SEA 285 285 285 285
DAYS/YEAR IN PORT 65 65 65 65
MT/YEAR, SEA 689 689 0 0
MT/YEAR, PORT 82 82 82 82
$/YEAR, $1000, SEA, YEAR 1 414 414 0 0
$/YEAR, $1000, PORT, YEAR 1 49 49 49 49
TOTAL: $4,369,146 $3,990,394 $3,801,667 $4,610,303
D.) VOYAGE TOTALS
DAYS AT SEA + RESERVE 36 36 36 36
DAYS IN PORT 7 7 7 7
TOTAL FUEL CARRIED, METRIC TONS/VOYAGE 1,680 1,526 1,531 1,648

128
 MACHINERY MAINTENANCE COST
7L60MC 5RTA68 5RTA68+PTOG 2xM43C+GDG
HIGHEST MCR, bkW OR mSHP 13440 15650 15650 12000
M.E. bkW, SERVICE 9840 9130 9660 9810
% MCR, SERVICE/HIGHEST 0.73 0.58 0.62 0.82
NO. OF CYLINDERS 7 5 5 12
BASIC MANHOURS/CYLINDER-YEAR, 85%, 6000 HOURS 36.50 36.50 36.50 37.50
ADJUST FOR MCR^1.5 AND DAYS/YEAR 33.26 23.66 25.75 40.32
$/MANHOUR, PRESENT, CONTRACT LABOR 110 110 110 110
CONTRACT LABOR, $/YEAR, PRESENT 25613 13013 14162 53225
PARTS, $/bkW-YEAR, PRESENT, fmDSLPRTS 5.80 5.80 5.80 18.47
ADJUST FOR MCR^1.5 AND DAYS/YEAR 5.29 3.76 4.09 19.86
PARTS, $/YEAR, PRESENT 71039 58837 64034 238318
LABOR AND PARTS, $/YEAR, PRESENT 96652 71850 78196 291542
TOTAL ADJUSTED TO YEAR 1 109200 81200 88300 329400
TOTAL, $/bkW, RATED 8.13 5.19 5.64 27.45
SSDG ENGINES ONLY
NO. OF SSDG 3 3 2 2
HIGHEST MCR, bkW 650 650 650 650
SSDG kWe, RATED 615 615 615 615
SSDG SEA: kWe 480 480 0 0
SSDG PORT: kWe 250 250 250 250
NO. OF CYLINDERS 4 4 4 4
BASIC MANHOURS/ CYLINDER-YEAR, 85%, 6000 HOURS 9 9 9 9
ADJUST FOR MCR^1.5 AND DAYS/YEAR 3.1 3.1 0.4 0.4
$/MANHOUR, PRESENT, CONTRACT LABOR 110 110 110 110
CONTRACT LABOR, $/YEAR, PRESENT 4073 4073 322 322
PARTS, $/bkW-YEAR, PRESENT, fmSSDGPRTS 12.82 12.82 12.82 12.82
ADJUST FOR MCR^1.5 AND DAYS/YEAR 4.65 4.65 0.55 0.55
PARTS, $/YEAR, PRESENT 9075 9075 717 717
SSDG MTC, $, YEAR 1 13148 13148 1038 1038
ADJUSTED TO YEAR 1 14900 14900 1200 1200
MISCELLANEOUS
MISC MTC, $, YEAR 1 125000 125000 125000 125000
PLANT MTC, $, YEAR 1 249000 221000 215000 456000
PLANT MTC, $/bkW(skW), RTD 21.50 20.56 18.94 38.00
TOTAL: $288,960 $321,764 $296,411 $456,000

129
BIOFUEL / BIODIESEL: TRADITIONAL POWER PLANT VS. PLANT WITH ATTACHED
GENERATOR

130
 MAIN TABLE Used Vessel
Main Engine 7L60MC 5RTA68 5RTA68+PTOG 2xM43C+GDG
Generating Plant SSDG SSDG SSDG/PTOG SSDG/GDG
RPM @ Match Point 106 76 76 76
Change in Propeller Efficiency (%) N/A 7.5 7.5 7.5
skW, for Average Service Speed
Gear Efficiency (%) N/A N/A N/A 98.5
PTO or GDG skW N/A N/A
Other PTO, HP or % N/A N/A
M.E. bkW, Service 9,840 9,130 9,660 9,810
M.E. bkW, Rated 11,580 11,370 11,370 12,000
% MCR in Service 85 85 85 85
Plant Cost ($1000) 16,400 18,900 18,900 15,600
Ship Cost ($1000) 37,500 40,000 40,000 36,700 10,000
Mortgage (% Interest) 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5
Years 12 12 12 12 12
CRF 0.1226 0.1226 0.1226 0.1226 0.1226
Fuel, M.E. IF380 IF380 IF380 IF180
PUB SFC (g/bkW-hr) 480 480 480 480
Sea: kWe 480 480 480 480
Source SSDG SSDG PTOG PTOG
Generator Fuel Distillate Distillate Distillate Distillate
Port: kWe 250 250 250 250
Source SSDG SSDG SSDG SSDG
Metric Tons/Day, M.E. 113.4 105.2 111.3 113.0
Metric Tons/Day, Gen., at Sea 2.4 2.4 0 0
Metric Tons/Day, in Port 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
DWT, Metric Tons 65,000 65,042 65,046 64,882
Fuel Carried/Voyage, Metric Tons 4,163 3,869 4,002 4,064
Miscellaneous DWT 500 500 500 500
Cargo DWT 64,300 64,551 64,415 64,516 64,300
Voyages/Year 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Cargo/Year 578,700 580,963 579,734 580,645 578,700
Annual Cost, Year 1 ($1000)
Mortgage 4,598 4,904 4,904 4,499 1,226
Fuel at Sea 10,440 9,717 9,843 11,286 10,962
Fuel in Port 49 49 49 49 51
Lubricating Oil 212 200 197 199 223
Machinery Maintenance 249 221 215 456 299
Hull Maintenance 750 750 750 750 1,125
Crew & Subsistence 1,799 1,799 1,799 1,799 1,979
Insurance 750 800 800 734 750
Port Fees & Administration 750 750 750 750 900
TOTALS
Annual Total $19,600 $19,200 $19,300 $20,500 $17,500
RFR $33.87 $33.05 $33.29 $35.31 $30.24
Difference, RFR to Best $0.58 -$0.24 $0.00 $2.01 -$3.05
Profit/Year
$1,800,000

131
 FUEL COST
A.) FUEL UNIT COST
LIGHT DISTILLATE IF180 IF380 RESIDUAL BIOFUEL
% DISTILLATE 100 14 6 0 N/A
% RESIDUAL 0 86 94 100 N/A
LHV, kJ/kg 42700 40000 39600 39400 19000
$/METRIC TON, DELIVERED, PRESENT 600 350 310 290 480
PROJECTED INFLATION (%/YEAR) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
$/METRIC TON, AVERAGE, YEAR 1 600 350 310 290 480
B.) MAIN ENGINE CONSUMPTION
ENGINE 7L60MC 5RTA68 5RTA68+PTOG 2xM43C+GDG
bkW/mSHP, SERVICE (DSL/STM) 9840 9130 9660 9810
PUBLISHED SFC, g/bkW-hr (lb/mSHP-hr) 168 164 165 176
HEATING VALUE OF TEST BED FUEL 42700 42700 42700 42700
HEATING VALUE OF FUEL TO BE USED 19000 19000 19000 19000
MANUFACTURER'S TOL ON SFC (%) 3 3 3 5
SFC, SERVICE (LHV & TOL, DSLS) 480 480 480 480
MTPD IN SERVICE 113.4 105.2 111.3 113.0
DAYS/YEAR AT SEA 285 285 285 285
MT/YEAR 32343 30010 31752 32245
$/YEAR, $1000, YEAR 1 10026 9303 9843 11286

132
 C.) ELECTRICAL GENERATING PLANT CONSUMPTION
SOURCE, SEA/PORT SSDG SSDG PTOG/SSDG GDG/SSDG
kWe, SEA 480 480 480 480
kWe, PORT 250 250 250 250
SSDG SFC, g/kWe 210 210 210 210
MTPD, SEA 2.4 2.4 0 0
MTPD, PORT 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
DAYS/YEAR AT SEA 285 285 285 285
DAYS/YEAR IN PORT 65 65 65 65
MT/YEAR, SEA 689 689 0 0
MT/YEAR, PORT 82 82 82 82
$/YEAR, $1000, SEA, YEAR 1 414 414 0 0
$/YEAR, $1000, PORT, YEAR 1 49 49 49 49
TOTAL: $10,489,472 $9,766,017 $9,892,061 $11,334,698
D.) VOYAGE TOTALS
DAYS AT SEA + RESERVE 36 36 36 36
DAYS IN PORT 7 7 7 7
TOTAL FUEL CARRIED, METRIC TONS/VOYAGE 4,163 3,869 4,002 4,064

133
TRADITIONAL POWER PLANT VS. GAS TURBINE PLANT WITH REHEAT OPTIONS

134
 MAIN TABLE
BASE SHIP BASE + WHTG HDGT COGAS ADGT COGAS ADGT (GE LM2500)
Main Engine 9K90ME-C 9K90ME-C HDGT COGAS ADGT COGAS ADGT COGAS
Generating Plant 4 SSDG 3 SSDG GDG+3 SSDG GDG+3 SSDG GDG+3 SSDG
RPM @ Match Point 104 104 104 104 104
Change in Propeller Efficiency (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
skW, for Average Service Speed 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000
Gear Efficiency (%) N/A N/A
PTO or GDG skW 0 1,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Other PTO, HP or % N/A 97% 96% 96% 96%
M.E. bkW (skW for GT), Service 32,000 32,000 26,400 30,100 30,100
M.E. bkW (skW for GT), Rated 41,130 41,130 41,200 41,200 41,200
% MCR in Service 78% 78% N/A N/A N/A
Plant Cost ($1000) 44,700 44,900 46,700 46,900 40,500
Ship Cost ($1000) 76,000 76,200 78,000 78,200 71,800
Mortgage (% Interest) 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5
Years 12 12 12 12 12
CRF 0.1226 0.1226 0.1226 0.1226 0.1226
Fuel, M.E. Distillate Distillate Distillate Distillate Distillate
PUB SFC (g/bkW-hr) 170 170 169 169 169
Sea: kWe 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300
Source SSDG TG, SSDG SDG GDG GDG
Generator Fuel Distillate Distillate Distillate Distillate Distillate
Port: kWe 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Source SSDG SSDG SSDG SSDG SSDG
Metric Tons/Day, M.E. 134.9 134.9 140.3 140.3 140.3
Metric Tons/Day, Gen., at Sea 11.6 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Metric Tons/Day, in Port 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
DWT, Metric Tons 62,500 62,554 61,167 60,981 60,981
Fuel Carried/Voyage, Metric Tons 2,210 2,132 2,115 2,115 2,115
Miscellaneous DWT 500 500 500 500 500
Cargo DWT 49,606 49,630 51,034 51,220 51,220
Voyages/Year (Roundtrip) 25 25 25 25 25
Cargo/Year 225,000 225,000 227,000 227,000 227,000
Containers/Voyage 4,500 4,500 4,540 4,540 4,540
TEU/Year 225,000 225,000 227,000 227,000 227,000
Annual Cost, Year 1 ($1000)
Mortgage 9,318 9,342 9,563 9,587 8,803
Fuel at Sea 26,368 25,460 25,261 25,261 25,261
Fuel in Port 151 151 151 151 151
Lubricating Oil 719 719 17 17 17
Machinery Maintenance 360 386 545 1,411 1,411
Hull Maintenance 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250
Crew & Subsistence 1,986 1,986 1,986 1,986 1,986
Insurance 1,520 1,524 1,560 1,564 1,436
Port Fees & Administration 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
TOTALS
Annual Total $42,672 $41,819 $41,333 $42,227 $41,315
RFR, $/TEU $189.65 $185.86 $182.08 $186.02 $182.00
Difference, RFR to Best $7.57 $3.78 $0.00 $3.94 -$0.08
Difference, RFR to Best $7.65 $3.86 $0.08 $4.02 $0.00

135
 VOYAGE CALCULATION
ONE-WAY DISTANCE, NAUTICAL MILES 3300
AVERAGE SERVICE SPEED, LOAD/BALLAST 23

WESTBOUND VOYAGE, DAYS 6

LOAD/DISCH. IN NEWARK, DAYS 1
EASTBOUND VOYAGE, DAYS 6
LOAD/DISCH. IN ANTWERP, DAYS 1
CANAL PASSAGE 0

DAYS/ROUND VOYAGE 14
SEA DAYS/VOYAGE 12
PORT & CANAL DAYS/VOYAGE 0

VOYAGES/YEAR 25
SEA DAYS/YEAR 300
PORT DAYS/YEAR 50

CREW & SUBSISTENCE COSTS

Number Current Wage & O.T. TOTAL ($1000/YEAR)
MASTER 1 90 90
CHIEF ENGINEER 1 87 87
CHIEF MATE/SECOND ENGINEER 2 65 130
SECOND MATE 1 45 45
THIRD MATE/THIRD ENGINEER/REEFER TECH. 3 40 120
CADETS 2 5 10
AB/QMED/COOK 5 20 100
OS/MESS 4 16 64
SPARES 4
TOTAL, CURR 23 646
VACATION RELIEF (multiply total by 1.5) 969
HEALTH, PENSIONS, OVERHEADS (multiply previous line by 1.5) 1,454
SUBSISTENCE, $/PERSON-DAY 25 210
CREW & SUBSISTENCE, CURR 1,663
CREW & SUBSISTENCE, YEAR 1 1,871
COMM AND BONUSES 115
TOTAL CREW AND SUBSISTENCE, YEAR 1 1,986
TOTAL: $1,986,297

136
 PLANT WEIGHT, METRIC TONS
ENGINE 9K90ME-C 9K90ME-C HDGT COGAS ADGT COGAS
ENGINE, GEAR, CONDENSER 1376 1376 320 205
SHAFTS, BEARINGS 170 170 210 210
PROPELLER, NO SPARE 70 70 70 70
BOILERS, UPTAKES 100 130 160 160
GENERATORS (SSDG, TG, SDG) 175 155 130 130
OTHER AUXILIARIES 200 220 180 160
SWITCHBOARDS, CONSOLES 20 20 20 20
CONTAINED LIQUIDS 215 230 125 105

SUBTOTAL (METRIC TONS) 2326 2371 1215 1060

FOUNDATIONS, PIPING, CABLING, PLATFORMS, ACCS, OVERHAUL (20%) 465 474 243 212

TOTAL (METRIC TONS) 2791 2845 1458 1272

DIFFERENCE FROM BASE 0 54 -1333 -1519
ADJUSTED DWT 62500 62554 61167 60981

L.O. COST
ENGINE: 9K90ME-C 9K90ME-C HDGT COGAS ADGT COGAS
bkW/skW, SERVICE 32100 32100 34600 34600
SLOC, g/bkW-hr 1.1 1.1 0 0
DAYS/YEAR AT SEA 300 300 300 300
METRIC TONS/YEAR, MAIN ENGINES 254 254 0 0
SSDG USE PORT & SEA PORT & SEA PORT PORT
DAYS/YEAR AT SEA 300 300 300 300
SEA LOAD, kWe 2300 2300 0 0
DAYS/YEAR IN PORT 50 50 50 50
PORT LOAD, kWe 1000 1000 1000 1000
SSDG SLOC, g/kWe-hr 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
METRIC TONS/YEAR, SSDG 28.4 28.4 1.9 1.9
METRIC TONS/YEAR, MISC. 5 5 5 5
TOTAL L.O., METRIC TONS/YEAR 288 288 7 7
AVERAGE L.O. COST, $/METRIC TON, PRESENT 2500 2500 2500 2500
AVERAGE L.O. COST, $/METRIC TON, YEAR 1 2500 2500 2500 2500
$/YEAR, $1000, YEAR 1 719 719 17 17
TOTAL: $719,000 $719,000 $17,000 $17,000

137
 PLANT COST

DATE MACHINERY ORDERED: 07/01/07

ENGINE 9K90ME-C 9K90ME-C HDGT COGAS ADGT COGAS ADGT (GE LM2500)
bkW or mSHP @ MCR 41130 41130 41200 41200 41200
HIGHEST MCR OF ENGINE 41130 41130 N/A N/A N/A
PROPELLER RPM 104 104 104 104 104
$/bkW, (MSD WITH GEAR) 585 585 N/A N/A N/A
SSDG: NUMBER 3.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6
SSDG: RATING, kWe 2650 2650;1450 2650;1450 2650;1450 2650;1450
SSDG COST, $/kWe 525 525 525 525 525
PTOG OR TG: RATING, kWe 0 1500 2500 2500 2500
PTOG: $/kWe 0 750 750 750 750
COST, k$
M.E., GEARING & THRUST BEARINGS 24061 24061 23600 24300 19500
BOILER AND FEED SYSTEM 0 250 1250 950 950
CONDENSER, CONDENSATE SYSTEM, CIRCULATING SYSTEM 0 100 350 300 300
PROPELLERS, SHAFTS, BEARINGS; INLUDING SPARES 2780 2780 2940 2940 2940
PUMPS, HES, SEPS, COMPS FRACTION 1/8 1/8 1/9 1/10 1/10
PUMPS, HES, SEPS, COMPS COST 3008 3008 2622 2430 1950
PTOG OR TG 0 1125 1875 1875 1875
SSDG COST 5009 3618 3618 3618 3618
AUTOMATION, CONTROLS, CONSOLES, SWITCHBOARDS 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200
HULL AUXILIARIES 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
TOTAL COST, k$
SUBTOTAL 37058 37141 38455 38613 33333
15% FOR PIPING, FNDNS, TANKS, WIRING, ACCESS, OVERHAULING, UPTAKES 5559 5571 5768 5792 5000
ENGINEERING CHARGE, EACH OF TWO 0 50 250 250 250
5% YARD PROFIT 2131 2138 2224 2233 1929

ESTIMATED COST TO OWNER ($1000) 44,700 44,900 46,700 46,900 40,500

TOTAL: $44,700,000 $44,900,000 $46,700,000 $46,900,000 $40,500,000

138
 FUEL COST
A.) FUEL UNIT COST
LIGHT DISTILLATE
% DISTILLATE 100
% RESIDUAL 0
LHV, kJ/kg 42700
HHV OR GHV, BTU/LB
$/METRIC TON, DELIVERED, PRESENT 600
PROJECTED INFLATION (%/YEAR) 0.00
$/METRIC TON, AVERAGE, YEAR 1 600
B.) MAIN ENGINE CONSUMPTION
ENGINE 9K90ME-C 9K90ME-C HDGT COGAS ADGT COGAS
bkW/skW, SERVICE (DSL/COGAS) 32100 32100 34600 34600
PUBLISHED SFC, g/bkW-hr (g/skW-hr) 170 170 169 169
HEATING VALUE OF TEST BED FUEL 42700 42700 42700 42700
HEATING VALUE OF FUEL TO BE USED 42700 42700 42700 42700
MANUFACTURER'S TOL ON SFC (%) 3 3 0 0
SFC, SERVICE (LHV & TOL, DSLS) 175 175 169 169
MTPD IN SERVICE 134.9 134.9 140.3 140.3
DAYS/YEAR AT SEA 300 300 300 300
MT/YEAR 40469 40469 42101 42101
$/YEAR, $1000, YEAR 1 24281 24281 25261 25261
C.) ELECTRICAL GENERATING PLANT CONSUMPTION
SOURCE, SEA/PORT SSDG TG, SSDG GDG GDG
kWe, SEA 2300 1300 0 0
kWe, PORT 1000 1000 1000 1000
SSDG SFC, g/kWe 210 210 210 210
MTPD, SEA 11.6 6.6 0.0 0.0
MTPD, PORT 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
DAYS/YEAR AT SEA 300 300 300 300
DAYS/YEAR IN PORT 50 50 50 50
MT/YEAR, SEA 3478 1966 0 0
MT/YEAR, PORT 252 252 252 252
$/YEAR, $1000, SEA, YEAR 1 2087 1179 0 0
$/YEAR, $1000, PORT, YEAR 1 151 151 151 151
TOTAL: $26,519,000 $25,611,560 $25,411,968 $25,411,968
D.) VOYAGE TOTALS
DAYS AT SEA + RESERVE 15 15 15 15
DAYS IN PORT 2 2 2 2
TOTAL FUEL CARRIED, METRIC TONS/VOYAGE 2,210 2,132 2,115 2,115

139
 MACHINERY MAINTENANCE COST
ENGINE: 9K90ME-C 9K90ME-C HDGT COGAS ADGT COGAS
HIGHEST MCR, bkW OR mSHP 41130 41130 41200 41200
M.E. bkW, SERVICE 32100 32100 0 0
% MCR, SERVICE/HIGHEST 0.78 0.78 0 0
NO. OF CYLINDERS 9 9 0 0
BASIC MANHOURS/CYLINDER-YEAR, 85%, 6000 HOURS 26.00 26.00 0.00 0.00
ADJUST FOR MCR^1.5 AND DAYS/YEAR 27.45 27.45 0 0
$/MANHOUR, PRESENT, CONTRACT LABOR 110 110 0 0
CONTRACT LABOR, $/YEAR, PRESENT 27176 27176 0 0
PARTS, $/bkW-YEAR, PRESENT, fmDSLPRTS 4.31 4.31 0.00 0.00
ADJUST FOR MCR^1.5 AND DAYS/YEAR 4.55 4.55 0 0
PARTS, $/YEAR, PRESENT 187158 187158 0 0
LABOR AND PARTS, $/YEAR, PRESENT 214334 214334 0 0
TOTAL ADJUSTED TO YEAR 1 242100 242100 344000 1225000
TOTAL, $/bkW, RATED OR $/skW 5.89 5.89 8.35 29.733

STEAM PLANT MAINTENANCE, YEAR 1 0 30000 100000 85000

SSDG ENGINES ONLY
NO. OF SSDG 3.6 2.6 2.6 2.6
HIGHEST MCR, bkW 300 300 300 300
SSDG kWe, RATED 2650 1450 2650 2650
SSDG SEA: kWe 2300 1300 0 0
SSDG PORT: kWe 1000 1000 1000 1000
NO. OF CYLINDERS 9 5 5 5
BASIC MANHOURS/ CYLINDER-YEAR, 85%, 6000 HOURS 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5
ADJUST FOR MCR^1.5 AND DAYS/YEAR 3.1 4.7 0.2 0.2
$/MANHOUR, PRESENT, CONTRACT LABOR 110 110 110 110
CONTRACT LABOR, $/YEAR, PRESENT 10917 6760 277 277
PARTS, $/bkW-YEAR, PRESENT, fmSSDGPRTS 12.82 12.82 12.82 12.82
ADJUST FOR MCR^1.5 AND DAYS/YEAR 4.62 7.13 0.29 0.29
PARTS, $/YEAR, PRESENT 4989 5562 228 228
SSDG MTC, $, YEAR 1 15906 12322 504 504
ADJUSTED TO YEAR 1 18000 13900 600 600
MISCELLANEOUS
MISC MTC, $, YEAR 1 100000 100000 100000 100000
PLANT MTC, $, YEAR 1 360000 386000 544600 1410600
TOTAL: $360,000 $386,000 $544,600 $1,410,600

140
ADDITIONAL CALCULATIONS

141
 The tables and data presented in the preceding pages are developed using the following

notes, formulae, and methods and based on comparable merchant vessels with a comparison

between different power plants as indicated.

Heavy Fuel and Distillate Fuel Data

Marine Gas Oil (MGO) and Marine Diesel Oil (MDO) are the commonly used marine

distillate fuel oils. The standards for these fuel oils are, respectively ISO DMA and ISO DMB

(the “D” designating distillate fuel oils). Density is usually below the limit of 820 to 860 kg
m3

and the sulfur content is rarely as high as the limits allow. The heating value is generally taken

as 42,700 kJ .
kg

The residual fuel oil standards are designated by an “R” and refer to residual fuels even

though they are usually lighter blends of very heavy refinery fuel oil and distillate fuel oil. Most

merchant ship low-speed and medium-speed propulsion engines run on fuel oil of 180 to 380

cSt at 50o C , corresponding to ISO RME/RMF and RMG/RMH. The heating value of these fuel

oils is generally around 39, 600 kJ .

kg

Many diesel engines of all speeds are operated on heavy fuel or lighter blends of heavy

fuel. But a balance must be struck between the lower cost of heavy fuel and the inconvenience,

increased maintenance, maintenance cost and fuel treatment that results from its use.

142
Fuel cost estimate, (2007)

Fuel Cutting stock IF 80 IF 180 IF 380 Residual

Viscosity, cSt @ 50o C 5 80 180 380 600
% cutting stock 100 32 18 6 0
% residual 0 68 82 94 100
Cost, $ 600 390 350 310 290
mT
LHV, kJ 42,700 40,500 40,000 39,600 39,400
kg
Vanadium, ppm 0 400 490 560 600
Sodium, ppm 0 140 160 190 200
Sulfur, % mass Trace 4 5 5.6 6
Aluminum, silicon, ppm 0 54 66 75 80

Example calculations considering blended fuels:

Cost:
600 − 290 = 310

@ 32% cutting stock:

310 ⋅ .68 = 210

600 − 210 = 390 USD mT

LHV:
42,700 − 39,400 = 3300

@ 32% cutting stock:

3300 ⋅ .68 ≈ 2200

42,700 − 2,200 = 40,500 kJ
kg

143
 From the spreadsheet table above, there is little difference between the costs of heavier

grades of fuel oil. In fact, the only noticeable difference in properties is in viscosity. This is

because there is an inadequate amount of distillate (cutting stock) in the intermediate fuel to

cause great changes in the properties of the fuel besides viscosity. The greatest amount of

distillate (in IF 80) is only 32%. As seen in the notes above, the cost of distillate fuels is so high

as to be economically inhibitive for use aboard most merchant ships. Many vessels therefore use

blends of heavy fuel, finding the balance between maintenance problems due to the use of heavy

fuel while at the same time keeping the amount of cutting stock to a minimum to minimize fuel

cost.

144
As an example:

Using a B&W 6L60MC engine, developing 11,520 bkW at MCR, and therefore 9,800 bkW at
85% Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR), with a specific fuel consumption of about 171 g/kW-h
on distillate fuel at 85% MCR, and allowing for realities (discussed on H p. 101 in Section 3.3) it
can be expected to consume about 176 g/kW-h of distillate fuel in service. If the engine is driving
a merchant ship, it might be loaded to 85% MCR for some 320 days per year. Estimated prices
for fuel are $696 per metric ton for distillate fuel and $285 per metric ton for heavy fuel oil.
Using this data, we obtain the following fuel cost for a vessel running on distillate fuel:

9800bkW ⋅ 176 gal. ⋅ 320 days ⋅ 24 hrs

bkW ⋅ hr year day
= 13246.5 mT
6 gal . year
10 mT

13246.5 mT ⋅ 600 USD = $7,947,880 per year

year mT

Now, using a general heavy fuel heating value of 39600 kJ as compared to the heating value
kg
of the distillate fuel of 42700 kJ , we can calculate the specific fuel consumption for the same
kg
energy input as follows:

42700
⋅ 176 = 190 gal.
39600 kW ⋅ hr

In the same way as with the distillate fuel oil, we calculate the fuel cost of the same engine
running instead on heavy fuel oil:

9800bkW ⋅ 190 gal. ⋅ 320 days ⋅ 24 hrs

bkW ⋅ hr year day
= 14300.2 mT
6 gal . year
10 mT

14300.2 mT ⋅ 300 USD = $4,290,050 per year

year mT

145
 Thus, even taking into consideration additional maintenance and component replacement

costs and added operating costs for heating and purifying the heavy fuel, this is a significant cost

savings of over $3,000,000 per year simply by using the lower grade of fuel oil. Blended fuels

are also cost effective with savings decreasing as the proportion of distillate fuel to heavy fuel oil

increases.

Performing the same calculations as above, we can find the specific fuel consumption, annual
consumption, and costs using pyrolysis-type biofuel, in comparison with distillate fuels. The
heating value of this biofuel is taken as 19,000 kJ (Edwards 2008, p. 16).
kg

42700
⋅ 176 = 396 gal.
19000 kW ⋅ hr

9800bkW ⋅ 396 gal. ⋅ 320 days ⋅ 24 hrs

bkW ⋅ hr year day
= 29800 mT
6 gal . year
10
mT

Using an average price of $1.82 per gallon of biofuel (Peña 2008, p. 7), we can calculate the
cost per year of using biofuel.

29800 mT ⋅ 480 USD = $14,327,500 per year

year mT

146
 WORKS CITED

Abbot, Willis J. The Story of Our Merchant Marine: Its Period of Glory, Its Prolonged
Decadence and Its Vigorous Revival as a Result of the World War. New York, NY: Dodd,
Mead and Company, 1919.

Adams, Rodney M. “Nuclear Power for Commercial Ships.” Marine Log Propulsion
Conference, October 1995.

Adamson, Kerry-Ann. “Fuel Cells and Marine Applications,” Fuel Cell Today, 2005, available
at www.fuelcelltoday.com; Internet; downloaded 16 February 2008.

American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, The. U.S. House of Representatives, 2009.

American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, The. Draft Summary. U.S. House of
Representatives, 2009.

Armstrong, Stephen. AP U.S. History: U.S. History. U.S.: McGraw-Hill, 2003.

Arai, Masashi, and others. Research and Development of Gas Turbine for Next-Generation
Marine Propulsion System (Super Marine Gas Turbine). Proceedings of the International
Gas Turbine Congress, Tokyo, 2003.

Bailey, Ronald. Energy Independence: The Ever-Receding Mirage: 30 Years of Presidential

Futility and Failure. 2004. Downloaded from www.reason.com, on 01 December 2008.

Bankers Trust Company. America’s Merchant Marine. New York, NY: Bankers Trust
Company, 1920.

Brasseur, Dr. Guy, and others, Eds. Challenges in Earth System Science: The Strategic Plan,
2003-2010. Max Planck Institute for Meteorology. Hamburg, Germany: December 2003.

Bray, Patrick J. “The Bulbous Bow: What is it, and why?” As found at www.dieselduck.ca.
Accessed 28 January 2009.

Broadhurst, William. The Marine Hydrogen Economy. U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, April
2008.

Butler, John A. Sailing on Friday: The Perilous Voyage of America’s Merchant Marine.
Washington, D.C.: Brassey’s, 1997.

Clean MPG, LLC. U.S. Oil Production vs. U.S. Oil Imports (graph), downloaded 17 October
2008, www.cleanmpg.com.

147
Cleveland, Cutler J. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
26 August 2008. As found at www.eoearth.org, downloaded 10 April 2009.

Conrad, John A., Blog Editor. Skysails-Plus-Top 10 Green Ship Designs, 27 January 2008. As
found at gcaptain.com, downloaded 20 March 2008.

Corbett, James J. “Mortality from Ship Emissions: A Global Assessment,” Environmental

Science & Technology. American Chemical Society, 2007.

Crowley, Michael. Green Horn Hybrid Workboat. Workboat Magazine, November 2008, pp.
70-72.

Cubby, Ben. Cargo Ships to Sail Solar. The Sydney Morning Herald, 28 October 2008.
Downloaded from www.solarsailor.com.

Cummings, Elijah E. “Eye on the Maritime Infrastructure.” Marine News, Number 11, Volume
17, pages 26 & 28. November 2008

De la Pedraja, René. As Historical Dictionary of the U.S. Merchant Marine and Shipping
Industry: Since the Introduction of Steam. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994.

Diesel Engines, as found at www.fas.org/man, downloaded on 29 February 2008. FAS Military

Analysis Network, 1999.

Dimotakis, Paul, Robert Grober, and Nate Lewis. Reducing DOD Fossil Fuel Dependence.
McLean, VA: September 2006.

Edmunds, J.A. and others. Global Energy Technology Strategy: Addressing Climate Change.
Battelle Memorial Institute, Washington, D.C.: 2007.

Edwards, John. Pyrolysis of Biomass to Produce Bio-oil, Biochar and Combustible Gas. Energy
Postgraduate Conference 2008. Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand, 2008.

Enercon. Christening and Launch of “E-Ship 1” in Kiel. Press release. 01 August 2008.

Energy Information Administration. Household Vehicles Energy Use: Latest Data & Trends.
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.: November 2005.

Energy Information Administration. Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and
Economic Activity. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.: October 1998.

Eurosif. Shipping—Sector Overview. Ninth in a series. February 2009.

Femenia, Jose. Response to Wall Street Journal article, “Ships Draw Fire for Rising Role in Air
Pollution,” by Blair Stanley, published 27 November 2007. Letter dated 05 December 2007.

148
Fournier, Anthony. Controlling Air Emissions from Marine Vessels: Problems and
Opportunities. Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University
of California Santa Barbara, February 2006.

Fraser, Whitney, Patrick Marchman, Diana Padilla Martínez, and Dan Thompson. Reducing Air
Emissions from Marine Diesel Engines: Regional Recommendations. June 2004.

Gabor, Dennis. Scientific, Technological and Social. Oxford University Press Inc, USA, 1970.

Garrett, T.L. “Ocean Vessel Response to Air Quality and Green House Gases.” AAPA Harbors,
Navigation and Environment Seminar. American Association of Port Authorities, 21 May
2008.

Geffen, C.A., S. Kim, and J.J. Dooley. Climate Change and the Transportation Sector:
Challenges and Mitigation Options. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Joint Global
Change Research Institute. Presentation to the DEER 2003 Meeting, August 24, 2003.

Gibson, Andrew, and Arthur Donovan. The Abandoned Ocean: A History of United States
Maritime Policy. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2000.

Greenwood, Jeremy. The Third Industrial Revolution: Technology, Productivity, and Income
Inequality. Economic Review 1999 Q2, as found at clevelandfed.org, downloaded on 28
March 2008.

Gupta, Ram B., Editor. Hydrogen Fuel: Transport and Storage. CRC Press. New York, NY,
2009.

Hakes, Jay E. "The 25th Anniversary of the 1973 Oil Embargo." The Energy Information
Administration. 11 October 2000. www.eia.doe.gov, downloaded 09 April 2008.

Harrington, Roy L., editor. Marine Engineering. Jersey City, NJ: Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers, 1992.

Helsinki Commission, Maritime Group, fourth meeting. Information Concerning Applied and
Potential Incentives to Curb Emissions from Ships. Klaipeda, Lithuania, October 2005.

Hirsch, Robert L. Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management.
February 2005. As found at www.hilltoplancers.org, downloaded on 09 April 2008.

Hoffmann, Peter. Tomorrow's Energy: Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and the Prospects for a Cleaner
Planet. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2001.

Hudson, RJF. Marine Propulsion Engines: The Failure of Corporate Innovation. 2005.

Intermediate Energy Infobook, Petroleum. Manassas, VA: The Need Project, 2007, 18-19.

149
International Maritime Organization. International Shipping: Carrier of World Trade. London,
UK: 2005.

International Organization for Standardization. “ISO 8217: Requirements for Marine Fuel Oils.”
2005.

Jackson, Chad and David Houlihan. Greening Today’s Products: Sustainable Design meets
Engineering Innovation. Aberdeen Group, Englewood, CO; August 2008.

Jones, Ian. “Trade unions and technology: A volatile mixture.” AI and Society. Volume 1, No.
2, pp. 144-146. Springer London. October 1987.

Kellogg, Frederic R. “The Future of the American Merchant Marine as Affected by its Fuel
Supply,” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science (1921): 277-282.

King, John. “Technology and the Seafarer,” Journal for Maritime Research. As found at
http://www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk. Downloaded 28 February 2008.

Korn, Milton, Michael Martin, and Peter Wallace. Cold Iron, A Maritime Contribution to Our
Environment. Paper No. 2006-D20. 6 September 2006.

Kumar, S., David Palmer, and William Sembler. Fuel Cells as an Alternative to Cold Ironing.
Brooklyn, New York: ASME, 2007.

Lamb, G. Robert, editor. High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan.
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Caderock Division,, Bethesda, MD, May 2003.

Landes, David S. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 1998.

Le Goff, Philippe. “Fuel Cells,” as found at pl.legoff.free.fr/docs, viewed 28 February 2009.

Leidig, Mark. “Environmental Regulation History in a Nutshell.” TCEQ Field Operations.

Texas: April 2007. As found at www.epa.gov, downloaded 9 April 2008.

MAN B&W. “Emission Control: MAN B&W Two-stroke Diesel Engines.” MAN B&W Diesel
A/S, Copenhagen Denmark.

Marine News. Briefs. Number 3, Volume 18, p. 24. March 2009.

Maritime Connector. “USMMA Global Maritime and Transportation School: History.” As

found at www.maritime-connector.com. Downloaded 28 April 2009.

Maritime Reporter. “Navy Solicits Energy Conservation Proposals.” Released 14 April 2009.
Broad Agency Announcement available at www.fbo.gov.

150
Maritime Reporter. New Fuel Cell Guidelines for Shipping. Downloaded from marinelink.com,
06 March 2009.

McCabe, Mike, and Alison Fisher. Overview of EU Oil Quality and Emissions Legislation
Developments. Lubrizol Limited. As found at www.osd.org, downloaded 9 April 2008.

McEnteggart, James. Nuclear Propulsion—Powering the U.S. Merchant Marine. U.S. Merchant
Marine Academy, April 2008.

McLaren, Warren. Solar Sailor Sun Sails To Be Fitted to Chinese Cargo Ships. Downloaded
from www.treehugger.com on 07 November 2008.

Mercogliano, Salvatore. Untitled. Received as part of U.S.M.M.A Master’s of Marine

Engineering Program, 2008.

Michaels, Patrick J. The State Factor: Global Warming and the Kyoto Protocol. American
Legislative Exchange Council. 2002.

Mitchell, C. Bradford. “Pride of the Seas,” American Heritage Magazine, Volume 19, Issue 1,
December 1967, as found at www.americanheritage.com, downloaded on 06 April 2008.

Murray, Raymond L. Nuclear Energy. Fifth Edition. Butterworth-Heinemann. Boston, 2000.

National Academy of Sciences. Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: Highlights

of National Academies Reports. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C.: 2006.

Natural Resources Defense Council. Getting Biofuels Right: Eight Steps for Reaping Real
Environmental Benefits from Biofuels. February 2008.

Navy League of the United States. Preserving Sea Power: A National Imperative. Arlington,
VA; 2008.

Naval Architect. “Shipping looks to wind power to save fuel.” March 2008, pp. 22-23.

Obama, Barack. “Renewing American Competitiveness,” speech from Flint, Michigan. 16 June
2008.

Obama for America. Barack Obama and Joe Biden: New Energy for America. Downloaded
from www.barackobama.com.

O'Hayre, R. P., S. Cha, W. Colella, and F.B. Prinz. Fuel Cell Fundamentals. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, 2006.

O’Rourke, Ronald. “Reducing Energy Use on Navy Ships.” Statement before the House Armed
Services Committee, Subcommittee on Projection Forces, Hearing on Alternative Ship
Propulsion Technologies, 06 April 2006.

151
Peña, Naomi. Biofuels for Transportation: A Climate Perspective. PEW Center on Global
Climate Change, Arlington, VA; June 2008.

Pestel, Eduard. The Limits to Growth (Abstract). A Report to the Club of Rome, 1972.

Ragheb, M. Nuclear Marine Propulsion. November 2008.

Richardson, Hugh. Steam Navigation on Lake Ontario. York, Ontario, CA: J. Carey, 1825.

Rifkin, Jeremy. The Hydrogen Economy. New York: J.P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2002.

Rifkin, Jeremy. Leading the Way to the Third Industrial Revolution: A New Energy Agenda for
the European Union in the 21st Century. 2007.

Roland, Alex, W. Jeffrey Bolster, and Alexander Keyssar. The Way of the Ship: America’s
Maritime History Reenvisioned, 1600-2000. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

Rowan, Alan. Module notes and reference material, EM 621—Advanced Marine Power Plants.
USMMA Master’s of Marine Engineering Program, 2007.

Salter, Stephen and others. Sea-going Hardware for the Cloud Albedo Method of Reversing
Global Warming. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 29 August 2008.

Secondary Energy Infobook, Petroleum. Manassas, VA: The Need Project, 2004, 34-37.

Shipping Looks to Wind Power to Save Fuel, The Naval Architect, pp. 22-23. March 2007.

SkySails GmbH & Co. SkySails: Turn Wind into Profit, December 2007. As found at
skysails.info, downloaded on 28 March 2007.

Spyrou, Andrew G. From T-2 to Supertanker: Development of the Oil Tanker, 1940-2000.
Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2006.

Stanley, Bruce. “Ships Draw Fire for Rising Role in Air Pollution,” The Wall Street Journal,
Vol. CCL No. 125. November 27, 2007.

Steinberg, Philip E. The Social Construction of the Ocean. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press, 2001.

Stopford, Dr. Martin. Maritime Economics. Pages 303-314. London, UK: Routledge, 1997.

Stopford, Dr. Martin. “Will the Next 50 Years be as Chaotic as the Last?” Presentation to Hong
Kong Shipowners’ Association, 18 January 2007.

152
Sulaiman Olanrewaju, Oladokun. Emission to Air from Ship—Towards Best Practice for Beyond
Compliance Operations and Management for Ships. Malaysian Maritime Academy, May
2007.

Thiesen, William H. Industrializing American Shipbuilding: The Transformation of Ship Design

and Construction, 1820-1920. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2006.

Thurston, Robert H. A History of the Growth of the Steam Engine. New York: D. Appleton and
Company, 1878.

Trauthwein, Greg. “The Road Less Traveled,” Marine News, July 2008, Number 7, Vol. 17, pp.
24-28.

United Nations, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. 1998.

U.S. Congress, 110th Congress, First Session, “American Fuels Act of 2007,” Washington, D.C.,
January 2007.

U.S. Department of Energy. Vehicle Technologies, Fact #4654: The Petroleum Gap.
www.eere.energy.gov. Updated 16 April 2007.

U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “The Changing Face of

Transportation,” BTS00-007, Washington, DC, 2000.

U.S. Department of Transportation: Maritime Administration. America’s Marine Highway

Program, 46 CFR Part 393. Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 197, Rules and Regulations, 09
October 2008.

U.S. Department of Transportation: Maritime Administration. A Vision for the 21st Century.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, DC, 2007.

U.S. Department of Transportation: Maritime Administration. Annual Report to Congress 2007.

U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, DC, 2007.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration

(RITA), Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National Transportation Statistics. As found at
www.bts.gov. Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary and Analysis of Comments: Control of

Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per
Cylinder,” January 2003.

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. Alternative Power Program, Program Overview.

Downloaded from app.usmma.edu, on 28 April 2009.

153
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. Ultra Green LNG Vessel/System. 05 June 2008.

Verenium Corporation. Cellulosic Ethanol: Policy: Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007. www.verenium.com, 2008.

Vergara, Julio A., and Chris B. McKesson. Nuclear Propulsion in High-Performance Cargo
Vessels. 2000.

Walsh, Bryan. “Why Green is the New Red, White and Blue.” Time Magazine, Special
Environmental Issue. Vol. 171, No. 17, pp. 45-57. 28 April 2008.

Westwood, John. Energy—The Big Picture, downloaded from www.douglas-westwood.com,

Douglas-Westwood, 2005.

Westwood, John. Green is the Color of Money, All-Energy Conference, 24 May 2007,
downloaded from www.douglas-westwood.com, Douglas-Westwood, 2007.

Westwood, John. Offshore Energy, MARIN 75th Anniversary Conference, 18 April 2007,
downloaded from www.douglas-westwood.com, Douglas-Westwood, 2007.

Westwood, John. Opportunities & Challenges for the Marine Industry, downloaded from
www.douglas-westwood.com, Douglas-Westwood, 2005.

Whitehurst, Clinton H., Jr. Last Clear Chance for an Enduring Maritime Policy. Strom
Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs. Clemson, S.C.: 1998.

Whye, Toh Boon. Propulsion System for a Wing-in-ground Effect Model. National University
of Singapore, 2005.

Woodyard, Doug. Editor. Pounder’s Marine Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines. Eighth edition.
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA, 2004.

World Nuclear Association. “Nuclear-Powered Ships.” Fact Sheet. October 2008.

Yacobucci, Brent D. and Aimee E. Curtright. A Hydrogen Economy and Fuel Cells.
Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. The Library of Congress, 14 January
2004.

154
 SECONDARY SOURCES

Ahlbom, Jan and Ulf Duus. Clean Solutions for Ships—Examples from the Port of Göteborg.
Projekt Grön Kemi. Sweden: Göteborgs Länstryckeri, May 2006.

ABS Conference on Marine Vessels and Air Quality: Environmental Considerations in Marine
Industry, San Francisco, CA: February 2001.

Baldwin, Sam. R&D Issues in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy Report, 1998.

Bennett, Oliver and Edward White. Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [HL]: Bill No. 68 of
2005-2006. London: House of Commons Library, January 2006.

Blenkey, Nick. “Clearing the Air—With Nuclear Power,” Second Thoughts, Marine Log, May
2007, 4.

Blythe, Neil X. Present and Future Emission Prospects for Diesel and Natural Gas Fueled
Marine Engines. Fairbanks Morse Engines.

Boon, Bart. Report on Maritime Transport and the Environment for Latin America. United
Nations Division of Natural Resources and Infrastructure. Santiago, Chile, October 2007.

Borgese, Elisabeth Mann. “Caird Medal Address 1999,” Journal for Maritime Research,
January 2000, as found at www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk, downloaded 29 February 2008.

Bourne, Joel K., Jr. “Green Dreams: Making Fuel from Crops Could be Good for the Planet—
After a Breakthrough or Two,” National Geographic, October 2007, 37-58.

BNET. “Fuel-saving hull coatings.” As found at findarticles.com. Accessed 28 January 2009.

Cooper, David. HCB, PCB, PCDD, and PCDF Emissions from Ships, Stockholm: IVL Swedish
Environmental Research Institute, October 2004.

Corbett, James J. Decision Framework for Emission Control Technology Selection, Final
Report. United States Maritime Administration, December 2003.

Corbett, James J. Technology Policy to Reduce Air Pollution from Ports and Vessels: Current
efforts and initiatives. TRB 85th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 22 January 2006.

Dressler, Terry, Tom Murphy, and Anthony Fournier. Next Challenge on the Horizon: Air
Pollution Emissions from Ships.

Farrell, Alexander E., David W. Keith, and James J. Corbett. “A Strategy for Introducing
Hydrogen into Transportation,” Energy Policy 31, pp.1357-1367. 2003.

155
Gore, Daniel J. “The Maritime Administration’s Energy and Emissions Program: An
Industry/Government Cooperative,” presentation to DEER Workshop, 26 August 2002.

Gore, Daniel J. “Recent Diesel Engine Emission Mitigation Activities of the Maritime
Administration Energy Technologies Program,” 2003.

Hirst, David. Which Emissions Reductions Should Shipping Trade? Shipping Emissions
Abatement and Trading, December 2002.

Hoffman, Donald. “Marine Fuel Cells,” Marine Vessel and Air Quality Conference, February
2001.

Industrial College of the Armed Forces, The. “Shipbuilding Industry,” Spring 2007 Industry
Study—Final Report. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University, 2007.

International Maritime Organization, Intersessional Meeting of the BLG Working Group on Air
Pollution, 1st session. Revision of MARPOL Annex VI, the NOx Technical Code and Related
Guidelines. October 2006.

Kennedy, Greg, ed. “The Merchant Marine in International Affairs, 1850-1950,” Journal for
Maritime Research, London, September 2002.

King, John. “Technology and the Seafarer,” Journal for Maritime Research, December 2000, as
found at www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk, downloaded on 29 February 2008.

Olny, Austin P. and others. “Vessel and U.S. Port Air Emissions Update,” Marine News,
December 2007, 28.

O’Rourke, Ronald. “Navy Ship Propulsion Technologies: Options for Reducing Oil Use—
Background for Congress,” CRS Report for Congress, 11 December 2006.

Ortmanns, Susanne. Economic Instruments for Reducing Air Pollution from Ships. Presentation
to the CCB Annual Conference 2007. Naturskyddsföreningen®, 2007.

Peel, Frank. The Risings of the Luddites. Cheapside, UK: T.W. Senior, Printer, 1880.

Pimentel, David and Tad W. Patzek. “Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood;
Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower,” Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14,
No. 1, March 2005. 65-78.

Reguly, Eric. “Biofuels, Diapers and Sails—Oh, My! Eco Notes from the G8 Summit.” The
Globe and Mail, June 2007.

156
St. Laurent, Janet A. “Propulsion Systems for Navy Ships and Submarines,” GAO-06-789R
Navy Propulsion Systems. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 6
July 2006.

Simbeck, Dale. “Emerging Unconventional Liquid Petroleum Options,” EIA Energy Outlook
and Modeling Conference, Washington, D.C., 27 March 2006.

“Status and Trends in Ship Design and Operating Technology,” An Assessment of Maritime
Trade and Technology, Chapter 5, 115-138.

Taylor, Rod B, for Transport Canada. Charting the Course: Marine Fuel Efficiency and
Emissions Conference, A Report on the Proceedings. Toronto, 2005.

“The United States Merchant Marine Academy Alternative Power Program—Business Plan,” 3
November 2004.

Tidman, Keith R. The Operations Evaluation Group: A History of Naval Operations Analysis.
Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1984.

Trauthwein, Greg. “Reducing Marine Emissions: Time’s Up,” Maritime Reporter &
Engineering News. September 2001, 20.

United Soybean Board, Market Potential of Biodiesel in Regulated Fleets, Marine Vessels and
Underground Mining Equipment. Los Angeles, CA: Booz-Allen & Hamilton, November
1998.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Marine Applications for Fuel Cell
Technology—A Technical Memorandum,” Washington, D.C., February 1986.

U.S. Department of Energy, “Advanced Fuel Cell Initiative: Objectives, Approach and
Technological Summary,” May 2005.

U.S. Department of Energy, “Biodiesel Handling and Use Guidelines,” September 2006.

U.S. Department of Transportation, “Hydrogen Fuels Working Group,” Charter, 8 July 2003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “In-Use Marine Diesel Fuel,” Fairfax, VA, August
1999.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Overview of EPA’s Emission Standards for Marine
Engines,” Regulatory Update, August 2004.

Warner, Michael. “A Planetary Petroleum ‘Windfall’ Fund for Carbon Abatement

Technologies,” Opinion, Overseas Development Institute, January 2008, 94-95.

157
 PHOTO CREDITS

Cover Page: Artist unnamed, downloaded from www.ansp.org, 04 May 2009.

Page 7: Photo collage by Beccaharrell, downloaded from www.flickr.com, 03 March 2009.

Page 118: Photographer unnamed, downloaded from www.dtsc.ca.gov, 03 March 2009.

End Page: Artist unnamed, downloaded from www.answers.com, 04 May 2009.

158
159