impact on short sea shipping - unmanned-ship.org · short sea shipping is less complex than deep...

GrantAgreementnumber:314286Projectacronym:MUNINProjecttitle:MaritimeUnmannedNavigationthroughIntelligenceinNetworksFundingScheme:SST.2012.5.2‐5:E‐guidedvessels:the'autonomous'ship

D10.1:ImpactonShortSeaShipping

Duedateofdeliverable:2015‐07‐31Actualsubmissiondate:2015‐09‐21

Startdateofproject:2012‐09‐01Leadpartnerfordeliverable:MRTK

ProjectDuration:36months

Distributiondate:2015‐09‐21 Documentrevision:1.0

Projectco‐fundedbytheEuropeanCommissionwithintheSeventhFrameworkProgramme(2007‐2013)

DisseminationLevelPU Public PublicPP Restrictedtootherprogrammeparticipants(includingtheCommissionServices)RE Restrictedtoagroupspecifiedbytheconsortium(includingtheCommissionServices)CO Confidential,onlyformembersoftheconsortium(includingtheCommissionServices)

MUNIN – FP7 GA‐No 314286

D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22

Status: final 2/20 Dissemination level: PU

DocumentsummaryinformationDeliverable D10.1:ImpactonShortSeaShipping Classification PublicInitials Author Organisation RoleØJR ØrnulfRødseth MRTK EditorHCB Hans‐ChristophBurmeister CML Contributor Rev. Who Date Comment0.1 ØJR 2015‐03‐15 Firstoutline0.2 ØJR 2015‐08‐31 Firstfulldraft0.3 ØJR 2015‐09‐02 Addedshortsectiononinlandwaterways0.4 HCB 2015‐09‐15 Commentsandcontributions1.0 ØJR 2015‐09‐21 Finalaftercomments Internalreviewneeded: []yes [x]noInitials Reviewer Approved Notapproved

DisclaimerThecontentofthepublicationhereinisthesoleresponsibilityofthepublishersanditdoesnotnecessarilyrepresenttheviewsexpressedbytheEuropeanCommissionoritsservices.

Whiletheinformationcontainedinthedocumentsisbelievedtobeaccurate,theauthors(s)oranyotherparticipantintheMUNINconsortiummakenowarrantyofanykindwithregardtothismaterialincluding,butnotlimitedtotheimpliedwarrantiesofmerchantabilityandfitnessforaparticularpurpose.

Neither the MUNIN Consortium nor any of its members, their officers, employees or agents shall beresponsible or liable in negligence or otherwise howsoever in respect of any inaccuracy or omissionherein.

Without derogating from the generality of the foregoing neither theMUNIN Consortium nor any of itsmembers,theirofficers,employeesoragentsshallbeliableforanydirectorindirectorconsequentiallossordamagecausedbyorarisingfromanyinformationadviceorinaccuracyoromissionherein.


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


Executivesummary

Shortseashippingislesscomplexthandeepseainthatanunmannedshipcallsatportsmoreoftenandsalvageismucheasier.Thus,someofthemaintenanceproblemscanbereducedorsolvedatlowercost.Also,closetoshoreoperationisperformedinemissioncontrol areaswhere alsomanned ships need to use cleaner fuels or exhaust cleaningsystems. Thus, fuel costs are also less of a problem. Finally, coastal shipping willnormally have access to much higher and lower cost communication infrastructurewhichalsoreducescostofoperation.

On the other hand, the ships operate in more congested waters which require otherapproachestoanti‐collisionandautomatedmanoeuvres.

This reportdiscusses these issues insomedetailandproposes twodifferentcases forunmannedshortseaships.Bothaddressthe"lastmile"problem,i.e.fromfeederorhubportstofinaldestination.Oneisalargercoastalcarrierwhiletheotherisasmallshuttlebargeforshorterdistances.

The report also briefly discusses inland waterway shipping and looks at the morespecific properties of that. The shuttle barge could be a useful starting point for aninlandshipdesign.


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


Listofabbreviations

CBA Cost‐BenefitAssessment

ECA EmissionControlArea

GHG Green‐HouseGas(CO2mainly)

HFO HeavyFuelOil

LNG LiquefiedNaturalGas

MGO MarineGasOil

ROPAX ROROpassengership(longerdistancecarferries)

SSS ShortSeaShipping


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


Tableofcontents

Executivesummary...............................................................................................................................3

Listofabbreviations.............................................................................................................................4

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................6 1.1 Scope ......................................................................................................................................................6 1.2 Structureofdocument.........................................................................................................................6

2. Anoverviewofselectedtypesofshortseashipping........................................................7 2.1 PassengershipsandROPAX..............................................................................................................7 2.2 Highwayferries.......................................................................................................................................7 2.3 Coastaltankersanddrybulkers......................................................................................................7 2.4 Containerfeeders...................................................................................................................................8 2.5 Inlandwaterwaysboats......................................................................................................................8 2.6 Lastmile.....................................................................................................................................................8

3. Differencesbetweenshortseaanddeepseashipping....................................................9 3.1 Unmannedoperation.........................................................................................................................10 3.2 Complexityofship...............................................................................................................................10 3.3 Automatedcargo.................................................................................................................................10 3.4 Fuelissues..............................................................................................................................................10 3.5 Maintenance..........................................................................................................................................10 3.6 Heavytraffic...........................................................................................................................................10

4. Inlandwaterwayshipping.......................................................................................................12 4.1 Inlandshiptypes..................................................................................................................................12 4.2 Trafficpattern.......................................................................................................................................13

5. Theunmannedshortseacargoship.....................................................................................14 5.1 Reducedcrew........................................................................................................................................15 5.2 Shipdesign.............................................................................................................................................15

6. Theunmannedshuttlebarge..................................................................................................16 6.1 Shipdesign.............................................................................................................................................17 6.2 Applicationforinlandwaterways................................................................................................18

7. Conclusions...................................................................................................................................19

References ...................................................................................................................................20


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


1. Introduction

1.1 Scope

European short sea shipping (SSS) may be an interesting opportunity for unmannedshipping. On the societal side, it is desirable to make better use of the Europeanwaterwaysthantodaytoreduceroadcongestionandgreenhousegas(GHG)emissions.Unfortunately,SSSisoftenmoreexpensiveorlessconvenientthantrucktransportandsignificantlyincreasingcompetitivenessbyreducingcostsisattractive.Onthetechnicalside,therearefactorsthatbothsimplifyandcomplicateunmannedshippinginashortseacontext.

This reportwillbrieflygo into the technicalpossibilitiesand limitationsofunmannedshort sea shipping inEuropeand compare it to some typical typesof shipping. Itwillalsooutlineafewexamplesofpossibleunmannedshipconceptsfortheshortseatrade.

ThisreportshouldbereadinconjunctionwithD10.2/1/asthatgoesmoreintodetailsonthegeneraltechnicalrestrictionsorconstraintsonunmannedvessels.

1.2 Structureofdocument

Section2outlinessometypicalSSScasesandtherequirements thesecasesputontheship.Itisnotanexhaustiveanalysis,butcoverssomeofthemainclassesofSSS.Abriefanalysisofpossibilitieswillbedone.

Section 3 discusses the possibilities of unmanned shipping in SSS with basis in thegeneralconstraintsdescribedinD10.2andinthemostpromisingcasesfromsection2.This will basically be a list of arguments pro and contrary to unmanned SSS, whencomparedtodeepseashipping.

Section4willdiscussinlandwaterwayshippingasaspecialcaseofSSS.

Section5and6will thenbrieflyoutline twopossiblecases thatmaybeworth furtherinvestigation. This is not a full CBA, but will outline the general arguments for andagainstthesetypesofships.


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


2. Anoverviewofselectedtypesofshortseashipping

Theanalysispresentedinthischapterisfairlyhighlevelandmainlybasedonpersonalinsight andopinionsby theauthors.Afterworkingwithunmanned shipping for threeyearsduringtheMUNINprojectwebelievethatthismaybeofsomeusetothereader.Also,theargumentsarepresentedandthereaderisfreetomakeuphisorhersmind.

Theconclusion in thissection is that the"lastmile" typeof shippingmaybe themostinterestingtolookatinthecontextofunmannedshipping.Thismayapplytolongerandshorterdistance,includinginlandshortdistancetransportandshipterminalshuttling.

2.1 PassengershipsandROPAX

AsignificantpartofEuropeanshortseashippingishighorlowerspeedpassengercraftsas well as passenger carrying car ferries (ROPAX). It is close to inconceivable to seetheseshipsasunmannedsinceanimportanttaskofthecrewistoassistpassengersinthe case of emergencies. It may be possible to reduce crew sizemarginally by usingtechnology of the type developed in MUNIN, but this will have marginal impact onoveralloperationalcosts.Theseshipsarenotlikelycasesforunmannedoperation.

2.2 Highwayferries

Anothercasewhichcouldbeinterestingisthehighwayshuttleferrywhichferriescarsandpassengersoverrelativelyshortstretcheswheresubseatunnelsorbridgesarenotcost‐effective.Thevoyagedurationisoftenontheorderof15to30minutesandlocationandinfrastructureseemstofavourunmannedshipsolutions.However,thesamepointas in the previous section applies: Creware needed tohelp passengers in the case ofemergenciesand it isnot trivial todeviceautomatedrescuesystemsthatwouldallowtheseshipstosailwithoutcrew.

Ontheotherhand,itshouldnotbeimpossibletofindtechnicalsolutionstotherescueproblemsoitisnotasunlikelyasthegeneralpassengership.

2.3 Coastaltankersanddrybulkers

Chemical and oil tankers will probably upset public opinion if they were operatingwithoutcrew.Technicallyandfromasafetyperspective,onecouldarguethatthis isareasonable proposition, but one may assume that the general public would be verysceptical.

Drybulkers,transportingsand,gravelorotherbulkmaterial,couldbeagoodcase,butmanyof these shipsaremoreor lessoperatingonvery low freight rates and there islikely not capital in the business to do the necessary technical innovations. It is alsounlikelythatthebusinesswouldbeabletorecovertheadditionalcosts.


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


Anexceptionmayoccurifthesocietydecidedtooffersomeformofsubsidiestoremoveveryoldandpresumablymoredangerousshipsfromthistrade.However,eveninthiscase,unmannedshipswouldprobablynotbethefirstchoice.

2.4 Containerfeeders

Thespecialpurposefeedershipswithoutcranesandoptimizedforhubtolargerfeederporttrafficcouldbecase,buttheeconomicincentivemaynotbethatstrong.Thistypeoftraffic seems to be operating on a fairly sound commercial basis although there isarguablyatendencythatthefeederportsgetfewerandlarger.

It is questionable if the necessary increased investments would represent a goodbusinesscase.

2.5 Inlandwaterwaysboats

Inland waterway boats could be a good case for unmanned shipping. However,introduction of unmanned barges or boatswould require a fairly large change in theinfrastructure and how the businesswas conducted. The impression is that there areperhapstoofewlargeactorsthatcouldundertaketospearheadthenecessarychanges.

Otherwise, the technical issues of unmanned shipping are significantly easier toovercome in the inlandwaterways and it remains attractive if a goodbusinessmodelcould be found. Furthermore, unmanned convoy systems could also provide a cheapalternative to increase freight volumes while not increasing the water depth bydredging.

2.6 Lastmile

Lastmileshippingisthetransportofgoodsfromhubstosmallerdestinationsthatarenotservedbylargefeederships.Normallyandtoday,thisisoftendonewithtrucksorinsomecasestrains.

However,insomeareastherearealsoshiprouteswithgeneralcargoshipsthathandlepartofthelastmiletransport.Theseshipsmayalsohandlecargobetweenfeederports.Theydonotgenerallycallonthelargeinternationalhubs.

Thistypeoftraffichasagreatpotentialinreducingroadtraffic.Theywillnotcompletelyreplacetrucksastherewillstillbetheneedtomovecargofromtheportswheretheseshipscallandlocationsoutsidethemaritimenetwork.

If such ships were to becomemore automated andmore competitive, theymay alsocompetewithsomeofthefeedertraffic,althoughthisismorespeculative.Thereisalsoan extension the otherway into very small shuttle barges thatmay directly competewithtrucksoncertaindestinations.


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


3. Differencesbetweenshortseaanddeepseashipping

ReportD10.2 identifies a numberof constraints that apply to deep sea shipping. Thissectionwillgo through theseconstraintsandmodify the listwithrespect toshortseaoperations. The solution column will, where applicable, give a reference to the sub‐sectioninwhichtheissueisdiscussed.

Thetabledoesnotcontainanentryonthelegalissues.Briefly,itcanbementionedthattheshortseaorinlandwaterwaysunmannedshipusuallywillbeasimplercaselegallythan the deep sea ship. This is because one will often be able to avoid operating ininternationalwatersandcanmakedowithgeneralagreementsbetweenthe flagstateandtheafflictedcoastalstates.Thisdoesnotmeanthelegalissueisstraightforwardasmanycomplicatedissuesremainasisdocumentedinotherdeliverables,e.g.D9.3/3/.

Table 1 – Comparison between short and deep sea shipping constraints

Constraint Solution

1. No crew Similar with respect to economy of solutions (3.1)

2. No passengers Same.

3. Quality SCC Same.

4. Simple design Less of an issue (3.2)

5. Automated cargo May be more important (3.3)

6. Fire protection Same

7. Fuel issues Less of an issue (3.4)

8. Maintenance Less of an issue (3.5)

9. Redundancy Same, see item 8 however.

10. Secure ICT Same.

11. Heavy traffic More severe (3.6)

12. Direct control More often (3.6)

13. Heavy weather Less severe, more protected waters.

14. Documented safety Same.

15. Dangerous cargo Same.

While short sea inmany respects is fundamentallydifferent thandeep sea, it is likelythatgoodsolutionscanbefoundalsohere.Onemayalsoassumethatshortseashippingmay be a better starting point for unmanned ship as it is shorter distances betweenmaintenance possibilities, involving fewer authorities and probably offers bettereconomicpossibilitiesintheshortrun.

The economy is probably better because the use of distillates or other fuel aswell aslowerefficiencyofredundantmachineryismuchlessofanissueforshortseatrafficthatcannotutilizethelongvoyagesonconstantandnearoptimalspeedonthemainengine.


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


3.1 Unmannedoperation

Short sea is in a sense more demanding that deep sea as port calls are much morefrequent and the fairways generally more complex in terms of traffic. To make theunmannedshortseashipcosteffective,onewillprobablyhavetogoforasolutionwithfullremotecontrolduringdifficultpassagesandautonomousnavigationelsewhere.Thismeansnocrewonboard,evenduringberthing.

3.2 Complexityofship

Shortseashipsnormallyhavelowercapitalinvestmentsandoperateonmorefrequentport calls. Thismeans that consequences of technical defectsmaybe less as they canmore readily be fixed and have less consequences in terms of off‐hire. This will,however,varyverymuchwithshiptypeandtrade.

3.3 Automatedcargo

Portcostsarerelativelymuchmoresignificantforshortseashippingandthedegreeofautomation in loadinganddischargemayhaveagreat impactonoperationalcosts.Asdiscussed in the previous section, last mile logistics may be an interesting case forunmannedships,butthistypeofshipwillalsobeverysensitivetoportcosts.

Ingeneral,manyshortseashippingsegmentsareverymuchcostconstrainedandthemainattractivenessofunmannedships is if it canreducecostssufficiently to increasecompetitivenessagainstroadtransport.

3.4 Fuelissues

Fuelcostsare important forshortseaaswellasdeepseashipping.However,asshortseashippingmostlyoperateswithinECAzones,bothmannedandunmannedshipshavesomeofthesameproblemsrelatedtoselectionoffuels.Inmanycasesthismeansthatalsomannedshipswill operatewith clean fuels suchasMGOorLNG in theECAarea.Thisremovesthisparticularcompetitiveadvantageformannedshipsinshortseatrade.

3.5 Maintenance

Short sea shipping is also somewhat less sensitive to themaintenance issues as portcallsaremorefrequentandconsequencesofsystemfailuresarelesssevere.Salvagingashortseashipismuchsimplerthanashiponthehighseas.

However, maintenance problems and system failures will easily increase costs ofoperationsandreducerevenuethroughmoreoff‐hire,soitisstillimportant.

3.6 Heavytraffic

Trafficonshortsearouteswillbeachallenge.Therewillgenerallybemoretraffic,thefairwayswillbemoreconstrainedandtherewillbemuchmoreleisureandsmallboat


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


traffic. Also, port calls will be much more frequent and one will in general need analternative method from that used for deep sea ships. One may want to use acombinationoftwoapproaches:

1. MuchmoretightcontrolviatheSCC.Itisprobablynecessarytousedirectremotecontrolduringlargerpartsofthevoyage.Thiswillalsorequiremuchmoreuseofhighdefinitionvideosignalsandotheron‐linesensordata.

2. One also needs to consider the need for specific traffic regulation rules andlegislation, e.g. giving the unmanned ship right of theway or reserving certainlanesforunmannedships.

Thebenefitofshortseashippingoperatingclosetoshoreisthatitwillnormallybeableto utilize better communication infrastructure, either dedicated or general purpose,suchas4Gmobiledatanets.Itisalsoeasiertocreatelocallegislationorrulesthatgiveunmannedtrafficimprovedprotectionagainstothershipsandboats.


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


4. Inlandwaterwayshipping

Thefollowingtableoutlinesthedifferencesbetweeninlandshippingandgeneralshortseashipping.Moredetailedexplanationscanbefoundinfollowingsub‐sections.

Table 2 – Comparison between short sea and inland shipping constraints

Constraint Solution

1. No crew Same with respect to economy of solutions.

2. No passengers Same.

3. Quality SCC Same.

4. Simple design Barge type (4.1)

5. Automated cargo Most use equipment in port.


7. Fuel issues Less of an issue (4.1)

8. Maintenance Less of an issue (3.5)

9. Redundancy Should be less of an issue (4.1)


11. Heavy traffic Rivers and canals (4.2)

12. Direct control Same as SSS




Thebargeconceptpresentedinsection0couldalsobeusedoninlandwaterwaysanditwould be a possible concept to make larger for more general barge traffic. It wouldprobablynotbesosuitableforbatteryoperation.

4.1 Inlandshiptypes

The ships operating on inland waterways are relatively narrow and long and with asmallairdraught.SomeexamplesoftypicalbargesareshowninFigure1.

Manyoftheseshipshaveasingleenginewiththrustersforincreasedmanoeuvrability.However,diesel‐electricsystemsarealsohereincreasingandLNGisalsoconsideredasasuitablefuel.

Relatively complex operational characteristics should allow for more advancedpropulsionsystemswithoutaveryhighadditionalcostpenalty.


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


Figure 1 – Some inland barge types /2/

4.2 Trafficpattern

Inlandwaterwayswillbeevenmorerestrictivethangeneralshortseashipping.Thesevessels sail mostly on channels and rivers with relatively limited flexibility inmovementsandoftenwithheavytraffic.

However,trafficpatternsaremoreregularduetothesamerestrictionsandonemayinsomecasescomparethistypeoftraffictotruckdrivingonhighways.

Alsothe legislativeregimeisverydifferentfromnationalshippingandtherearemorepossibilitiesforadaptionofruleslocallythanitisforareaswhereinternationallyflaggedshipsoperate.


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


5. Theunmannedshortseacargoship

AninterestingcaseforashortseacargoshipwasdevelopedbytheGodsfergen1projectinNorway.Itproposedarelativelysmallcargoshipforunit loads(45feetcontainers)andwithowncranesandnoneedformannedportoperationaspartoftheconcept.

Figure 2 – The proposed Godsfergen route1

The businessmodelwould be good, if one couldmanage to remove some of the portcostsassociatedwithcargohandlingwhichbasicallymeansautomatedhandlingofthecargoinport.Thiscouldalsobeextendedtofullyorpartlyunmannedoperationoftheship.

This isaformof lastmiletransport,wheretheshipisnotdirectlyafeeder,butrathercalls on smaller ports to take the last part of the voyage that the feeders do not findeconomicalortechnicallypossibletopickup.

Abrief comparisonof this concept to thegeneral constraints forunmannedshipshasbeenmadebelow.


Constraint Solution

1. No crew Fully or partly unmanned (5.1)

2. No passengers Ok.

3. Quality SCC Ok. Need more direct control also for cargo handling.

4. Simple design Will be somewhat more complex (5.2)

5. Automated cargo Fully (5.2)


1http://www.godsfergen.no/SitePages/NyhetDetalj.aspx?nid=153&t=Competitive+coastal+transport+on+short+distance


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


Constraint Solution

7. Fuel issues LNG or other (5.2)

8. Maintenance As generally for SSS ships (3.5).

9. Redundancy Yes (5.2).


11. Heavy traffic As SSS (3.6)

12. Direct control As SSS (3.6)




5.1 Reducedcrew

Theshipwilloperateona24/7schedulewhereportsarecalledonatanytimeofdayornight.Portsideoperationsmustbeautomaticandonecouldfairlyeasilyextendthistoautomatedcraneoperationsfromshiptoquayside.Thecontainerwouldpresumablybeloadeddirectlyontoachassisfortruckstopickuplater.

A problemwith 24/7 operation is nighttime noise in ports close to residential areas.Thismayalsohavetobeaddressed.

Afurtherextensiontothiswouldbetohaveafullyunmannedship.Thiswouldreducecostsandwouldrelievecrewofportoperationsatawkwardtimesofthenight.Theshipwouldalsobeabletoloadmorecargoorcouldbereducedinsize.

5.2 Shipdesign

The currentdesign iswithLNGas fuel andwitha single engine.Thiswouldprobablyhave to be changed to diesel electric and perhaps podded propulsion to increasemaneuverability in port. It would rely on automated berthing systems and cargohandlingwherecargounitswere loadedonoroff theshipdirectly fromthequaysidewhere trucks deposit or pick them up during day time. This may include forms ofautomatedguidedvehicles(AGV)inlargerports.

Withgeneratorsetsondeck, runningonLNG fromtankswheresuperstructurewouldhave been, these could later be exchanged with batteries or fuel cells, dependent ondevelopmentsintechnology.


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


6. Theunmannedshuttlebarge

Anotherconcept thatcameupduringdiscussion isa relativelysmall shuttlebarge fortransportofa fewcontainersbetweena terminalandsmallerdestinationports.Thesecouldbeseaorrailterminalsandthevoyagecouldcoverdistanceuptoabout200km.ThebargewouldbesimilartotheDNV‐GLReVoltconcept,butsmaller(Figure3).

Figure 3 – DNV‐GL ReVolt Concept ship2

Figure 4 – Concept using a mother ship with barges3

2https://www.dnvgl.com/technology‐innovation/revolt/index.html


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


Itcouldalsobeusedinarelatedconcept,suggestedbyNCEMarineandNCLinNorwayFigure4).Theconceptincludesamothershipthatcanusethistypeofshuttlestoreachsmallerdestinationsalongtheroute. Intheoriginalconcepttheshuttlesweremannedand had their own cranes, but unmanned units may also be attractive in such aconfiguration.

Inbothcasesthesameshuttleconceptcouldbeused.ThegeneralcharacteristicsoftheshuttlecomparedtothegeneralunmannedSSSaresummarizedinthetable.


Constraint Solution

1. No crew Fully unmanned.

2. No passengers Ok.

3. Quality SCC Ok. Need more direct control also for cargo handling.

4. Simple design Fairly simple (6.1)

5. Automated cargo None, dependent on shore support.

6. Fire protection Ok

7. Fuel issues Battery.

8. Maintenance Very low.

9. Redundancy Not critical, but probably an implicit effect of design (6.1)

10. Secure ICT Ok

11. Heavy traffic As SSS (3.6)

12. Direct control As SSS (3.6), but controlled directly from mother ship

13. Heavy weather Sheltered waters.



6.1 Shipdesign

Theshipshouldbebasedonbatterypowerforpropulsionandshouldbecheapenoughtoallowittostayatporttorechargewithoutcompromisingreturnoninvestments.

Itonlyhascargocarryingcapabilityandnocranes. Itneedsgoodmanoeuvrability forremotecontroltoberth.

Ballastsystemmaybenecessary,dependentongeneraldesignandcarryingcapacity.

Itwouldbedesignedforoperationinprotectedwatersonly.

3http://www.shortsea.tv/SitePages/News.aspx?t=Helt+ny+l%C3%B8sning+kan+l%C3%B8fte+last+fra+vei+til+sj%C3%B8


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


6.2 Applicationforinlandwaterways

The barge as described here could also be used in inland waterways, particularly inareaswheredepthmaybearestrictionforordinarybarges.

Thegeneral ideascouldalsobeusedina largerdesign,replacingconventionalbarges.However,itisnotclearifbatterieswouldbeaviablealternativeaschargingtimesandbattery costs may be problematic. LNG or similar clean fuel could be a very goodalternative.


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


7. Conclusions

The three casesdescribed in sections4 to6areall likely candidates forearly testsofunmanned ships. Probably is the inland barge or the unmanned shuttle barge thesimplesttoimplementintermsoftechnologyandregulatoryconstraints.Iftheconceptwasusedinitiallyonashortrangeoperationsinwatersrestrictedforothertrafficandonlywithinonejurisdiction,mostconstrainswouldbefairlystraightforwardtosatisfy.

Theshortseashipisalsoaninterestingproposal,butrequiresmoreworksasitoperatesinwatersopenforothertrafficandoftenalsoinseveral jurisdictions.Thelargershortseashipwouldalsobemoredemandingintermsofport infrastructureandoperators'businessmodel.

Shortseaisingeneralamoreaccommodatingareaforunmannedshipthandeepseaasinvestments generally will be lower and operational and economical riskscorrespondinglysmaller.


D 10.1 – Print date: 15/09/22


References

/1/ MUNINDeliverableD10.2,Newshipdesignsforautonomousvessels,2015‐08‐31.

/2/ Watery assets, Global Risk Dialogue Autumn 2008, Allianz Global Corporate &Speciality(http://www.agcs.allianz.com/assets/PDFs/GRD/GRD‐2008‐02‐en.pdf).

/3/ MUNINDeliverableD9.3,D9.3:Quantitativeassessment,2015‐08‐31.