Methodology:



Shippingefficiency.org
–
EEDI
Efficiency
Rating

for
Existing
Ships


Summary




The
ship
“Energy
Efficiency
Design
Index
(EEDI)”
has
been
formulated
by
the
IMO
Marine

Environment
Protection
Committee
(MEPC)
as
a
measure
of
the
CO2
emission
performance
of
ships.

The
ship
EEDI
is
calculated
on
characteristics
of
the
ship
at
build,
incorporating
parameters
including

ship
capacity,
engine
power
and
fuel
consumption.



Shippingefficiency.org
has
developed
a
method
to
calculate
an
EEDI
rating
–
or
as
we
have
named

our
version,
Energy
Efficiency
Rating
‐
that
can
be
used
to
compare
the
energy
efficiency
of
existing

ships
of
a
particular
type
as
part
of
the
Shippingefficiency.org
Rating
system.
The
ratings
for
an

individual
ship
are
calculated
by
comparing
the
EEDI
values
for
that
ship
to
overall
average
values
for

all
ships
of
that
type
(e.g.
bulk
carriers)
and
to
other
ships
of
a
similar
size
within
this
type.
Ship
types

are
consistent
with
those
used
by
IMO
MEPC.



The
method
for
calculating
the
GHG
emission
ratings
is
detailed
in
this
report.


Introduction


Warming
of
the
climate
system
is
now
considered
to
be
unequivocal,
and
evident
from
observations

of
increases
in
global
average
air
and
ocean
temperatures,
widespread
melting
of
snow
and
ice
and

rising
global
average
sea
level1.
Global
greenhouse
gas
(GHG)
emissions
due
to
human
activities
have

grown
since
pre‐industrial
times,
with
an
increase
of
70%
between
1970
and
2004,
and
most
of
the

observed
increase
in
global
average
temperatures
since
the
mid‐20th
century
is
considered
very
likely
































































1

IPPC,
2007.
Climate
Change
2007:
Synthesis
Report.
Contribution
of
Working
Groups
I,
II
and
III
to
the
Fourth

Assessment
Report
of
the
Intergovernmental
Panel
on
Climate
Change
[Core
Writing
Team,
Pachauri,
R.K.
and

Reisinger,
A.
(eds.)].
IPCC,
Geneva,
Switzerland,
104
pp.

due
to
the
observed
increase
in
anthropogenic
GHG
concentrations1.
Discernible
human
influences

also
extend
beyond
average
temperature
to
other
aspects
of
climate.
Carbon
dioxide
(CO2)
is
the

most
important
anthropogenic
GHG.



To
mitigate
forecast
destructive
climate
change
consequent
to
further
global
warming,

anthropogenic
GHG
emissions
must
be
stabilised
and
reduced.
This
is
a
global
challenge
to
be

addressed
by
all
countries
with
consideration
of
all
significant
emission
sources.

For
2007,
shipping

was
estimated
to
have
emitted
3.3%
of
global
CO2
emissions,
to
which
international
shipping

contributed
2.7%,
or
870
million
tonnes2.
Although
international
shipping
is
the
most
carbon

efficient
mode
of
commercial
transport,
total
emissions
are
comparable
to
those
of
the
6th
largest

nation
GHG
emitter,
necessitating
emission
reduction3.
Moreover,
according
to
the
IMO’s
GHG
Study

(2009)
if
unabated,
shipping’s
contribution
to
GHG
emissions
could
reach
18%
by
2050.


The
Shippingefficiency.org
Rating


Shippingefficiency.org
provides
a
free‐access,
beta
and
comprehensive
assessment
of
a
nominated

vessel’s
eco‐efficiency
credentials.
The
EEDI
assessment
has
an
”A
to
G”
rating,
based
on
analysis
of

data
from
IHS
Fairplay
and
processed
and
formulated
by
Rightship.


As
part
of
its
strategy
to
address
CO2
emissions
from
ships,
IMO
MEPC
has
developed
two
arithmetic

measures
of
the
energy
efficiency
of
individual
ships:
the
Energy
Efficiency
Design
Index
(EEDI),
and

the
Energy
Efficiency
Operational
Indicator
(EEOI).
The
Shippingefficiency.org
A
to
G
rating
is
based

on
calculation
and
analysis
of
the
EEDI.


Energy
Efficiency
Design
Index


The
EEDI
was
developed
as
a
measure
of
the
CO2
emission
performance
of,
primarily,
new
ships
and

is
calculated
from
data
on
the
ship
design
and
engine
performance.
The
intended
application
of
this

index
was
to
stimulate
innovation
and
technical
development
of
all
elements
influencing
the
energy

efficiency
of
a
ship
from
its
design
phase.
The
EEDI
is
calculated
by
the
following
formula4:
































































2
IMO,
2009.
Second
IMO
GHG
Study
2009.
International
Maritime
Organization
(IMO)
London,
UK.

3

ICS,
2009.
Shipping,
World
Trade
and
the
Reduction
of
CO2
Emissions.
International
Chamber
of
Shipping,

London,
UK.


4

IMO,
2009.
Interim
Guidelines
on
the
Method
of
Calculation
of
the
Energy
Efficiency
Design
Index
for
New

Ships.
Circular
MEPC.1/Circ.681.
International
Maritime
Organization,
London,
UK.

in
which:


ME

and
AE,
represent
Main
Engine(s)
and
Auxiliary
Engine(s);


P,
the
power
of
the
engines
(kW);


CF,
a
conversion
factor
between
fuel
consumption
and
CO2
based
on
fuel
carbon
content;


SFC,
the
certified
specific
fuel
consumption
of
the
engines
(g/kWh);


Capacity,
the
deadweight
or
gross
tonnage
(tonnes);


Vref,
the
ship
speed
(nm/h);
and


fj,
a
correction
factor
to
account
for
ship
specific
design
elements
(e.g.
ice‐class)


The
calculated
EEDI
is
a
theoretical
measure
of
the
mass
of
CO2
emitted
per
unit
of
transport
work
(g

CO2/tonne.nm)
for
a
particular
ship
design.



Shippingefficiency.org
GHG
Rating
Calculation


Data
Sources

EEDI
values
are
calculated
from
data
on
ship
characteristics
and
performance
accessible
to

Shippingefficiency.org.
To
date
the
primary
sources
of
data
have
been
existing
data
within
SVIS©,

Lloyd’s
Register
Fairplay
(LRFP)
database,
and
owners
data,
but
this
will
be
supplanted
by
ship‐
sourced
data
as
it
becomes
available.
We
encourage
the
website
users
to
input
their
data.


Assumptions

Where
ship
specific
data
are
not
available
(e.g.
specific
fuel
consumption),
the
values
used
in
the

Shippingefficiency.org
calculation
of
EEDI
are
based
on
the
same
assumptions
used
in
the
IMO
GHG

Study2
and/or
detailed
in
IMO
Circulars
on
calculation
of
the
two
energy
efficiency
measures4,5.




These
assumptions
are:



• Specific
Fuel
Consumption
(Main
Engine),
SFCME:


Engine
Age
 MCRME
 SFCME



(kW)
 (g/kWh)

>
15,000
 205


Pre‐1983
 5,000
to
15,000
 215


<
5000
 225


1984‐2000
 >
15,000
 185


5,000
to
15,000
 195

 
 <
5000
 205


>
15,000
 175


2001‐2007
 5,000
to
15,000
 185


<
5000
 195


• Specific
Fuel
Consumption
(Auxiliary
Engine),
SFCAE:


Engine
Age
 MCRAE
>
800
kW
 MCRAE
<
800
kW


Any
 220
g/kWh
 230
g/kWh


• Power
(Main
Engine),
PME:



 =0.75
MCRME


• Power
(Auxiliary
Engine),
PAE:
 


MCRME
 >
10,000
kW
 <
10,000
kW


PAE
 =(0.025*MCRME)+250
 0.05*MCRME


• Ship
Speed,
Vref:

 
 =
Design
Speed


• Capacity:


o Deadweight,
for
dry
cargo
carriers,
tankers,
gas
tankers,
ro‐ro
cargo
and
general

cargo
ships


o 65%
deadweight,
for
containerships


• CO2
Conversion
Factors,
CF:


Fuel
Type
 C F

Carbon
Content

(t‐CO2/t‐Fuel)

Diesel/Gas
Oil
(DGO)
 0.875
 3.206


Light
Fuel
Oil
(LFO)
 0.86
 3.15104


Heavy
Fuel
Oil
(HFO)
 0.85
 3.1144


Liquified
Petroleum
Gas
(LPG)
 
 


Propane
 0.819
 3.000


Butane
 0.827
 3.030


 Liquified
Natural
Gas
(LNG)
 0.75
 2.750


Ship
Types
and
Sizes

The
categories
of
ship
and
ship
sizes
used
for
the
derivation
of
comparative
GHG
ratings
follow
those

in
IMO
documents
GHG‐WG
1/45
and
MEPC
59/J/86
as
follows:


Ship
Type
 Ship
Sizes

 Ship
Type

 Ship
Sizes


Crude
Oil
Tanker
 A.
 200,000+
dwt
 LNG

Tanker
 A.
 200,000+
cbm



 B.
 120
–
199,999
dwt
 
 B.
 <
200,000
cbm



 C.
 80
–
119,999
dwt
 Bulk
Carrier
 A.
 200,000+
dwt



 D.
 60
–
79,999
dwt
 
 B.
 100
–
199,999
dwt



 E.
 10
–
59,999
dwt
 
 C.
 60
–
99,999
dwt



 F.
 <
10,000
dwt
 
 D.
 35
–
59,999
dwt


Products
Tanker
 A.
 60,000+
dwt
 
 E.
 10
–
34,999
dwt



 B.
 20
–
59,999
dwt
 
 F.
 <
10,000
dwt



 C.
 10
–
19,999
dwt
 Container
 A.
 8,000+
teu



 D.
 5
–
9,999
dwt
 
 B.
 5
–
7,999
teu



 E.
 <
5,000
dwt
 
 C.
 3
–
4,999
teu


Chemical
Tanker
 A.
 20,000+
dwt
 
 D.
 2
–
2,999
teu



 B.
 10
–
19,999
dwt
 
 E.
 1
–
1,999
teu



 C.
 5
–
9,999
dwt
 
 F.
 <
1,000
teu



 D.
 <
5,000
dwt
 Vehicle
Carrier
 A.
 20,000+
dwt


LPG
Tanker
 A.
 60,000+
cbm
 
 B.
 10
–
19,999
dwt
































































5

IMO,
2008.
Possible
methodology
and
regulatory
framework
for
establishing
CO2
efficiency
baselines
for

different
segments
of
international
shipping.
Paper
GHG‐WG
1/4.
International
Maritime
Organization,

London,
UK.

6

IMO,
2009.
Information
to
facilitate
discussion
on
GHG
emissions
from
ships.
Decision
scenarios
for
CO2

emissions.
Paper
MEPC
59/J/8.
International
Maritime
Organization,
London,
UK.




 
 B.
 20
–
59,999
cbm
 
 C.
 2
–
9,999
dwt



 C.
 5
–
19,999
cbm
 
 D.
 <
2,000
dwt



 D.
 2
–
4,999
cbm
 
 
 



 E.
 <
2,000
cbm
 
 
 






Rating
Calculation

The
EEDI
ratings
for
an
individual
ship
are
calculated
by
assessing
the
values
for
that
ship
to
overall

average
values
for
all
ships
of
that
type
(e.g.
bulk
carriers)
and
to
other
ships
of
a
similar
size
within

this
type.
Therefore,
the
‘A
to
G”
rating
reflects
a
comparison
of
vessels
of
similar
size
within
a
type.

The
A
to
G
rating
is
based
on
the
EEDI
(Size)
Rating
(detailed
later)
as
follows:


A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 G


92.5
–
 80
–
 62.5
–
 37.5
–
 20
–
 7.5
–


0
–
7.5%

100%
 92.5%
 80%
 62.5%
 37.5%
 20%


EEDI
values
are
transformed
before
statistical
comparison
to
overcome
the
strongly
skewed

distribution
of
the
raw
data.
As
an
example,
the
frequency
of
occurrence
of
EEDI
values
for
bulk

carriers
is
presented
in
Figure
1.
The
distribution
of
values
for
all
ships
is
seen
to
not
fit
a
normal

(bell‐shaped)
curve,
with
the
average
of
all
values
not
central
to
the
distribution.

Direct
comparison

of
individual
ship
values
to
the
average
value
would
therfore
have
a
bias
against
above
average

(generally
smaller)
ships,
both
for
the
overall
type
and
within
ship
size
categories
within
the
type.






 Figure
1.
Frequency
distribution
of
calculated
values
for
all
bulk
carriers
in
the
database,
and
two
size

categories:
size
D
(35
–
60,000
dwt)
and
size
F
(<
10,000
dwt)


Applying
a
logarithmic
transformation
to
the
calculated
EEDI
values
normalises
the
frequency

distribution
for
both
the
overall
ship
type
and
ship
size
categories
within
the
ship
type
(Figure
2).

This
enables
individual
ship
values
to
be
validly
compared
to
the
average
for
ship
type
or
size.




Figure
2.
Frequency
distribution
of
logarithmic
(ln)
transformed
EEDI
values
for
all
bulk
carriers
in
the

database,
and
two
size
categories:
size
D
(35
–
60,000
dwt)
and
size
F
(<
10,000
dwt)


The
method
for
comparing
an
individual
ship’s
EEDI
value
to
the
type
or
size
category,
and
to
derive

the
EEDI
ratings
reported
in
the
Shippingefficiency.org
A
to
G
rating,
is
based
on
calculating
a

statistical
z‐score.
A
z‐score
is
a
standard
measure
of
the
variation
of
an
individual
value
from
the

average,
and
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
difference
between
the
ship
value
and
the
overall
average

for
the
type
or
size
group
by
the
standard
deviation
for
the
type
or
size
group.


z
score
=
(yi
–
ŷ)
/
s



 
 where:




 
 
 yi
is
the
ship
ln
EEDI
value,




 
 
 ŷ
is
the
average
of
ln
EEDI
values
for
the
type
or
size
group


s
is
the
standard
deviation
of
the
ln
EEDI
value
distribution
for
the
type
or

size
group

A
z
score
is
a
standardized
value
that
represents
the
value
of
the
variable
from
a
normal
distribution

with
a
mean
of
zero
and
a
standard
deviation
of
one.
Z
scores
can
therefore
be
compared
across

data
sets
with
different
value
scores
and
ranges.




For
the
purpose
of
the
Shippingefficiency.org
GHG
rating,
the
negative
z
score
is
used;
i.e.
the
sign,

positive
or
negative,
of
the
calculated
z
score
is
reversed.
This
is
done
because
the
z
score
calculation

will
give
positive
numbers
for
values
above
the
average
(i.e.
high
EEDI)
and
negative
numbers
for

values
below
the
average
(i.e.
low
EEDI).
Because
low
EEDI
values
represent
better
energy
efficiency,

assigning
a
positive
value
to
the
score
is
considered
to
better
represent
good
performance.



The
GHG
Rating
for
the
EEDI
is
achieved
by
the
addition
of
two
scores:
the
z
score
determined

relative
to
the
size
class
(“(Size)
Rating”),
added
to
the
z
score
determined
relative
to
the
overall
ship

type
(“(Type)
Rating”).


GHG
Rating
=
‐z
scoreType
+
‐z
scoreSize


The
incorporation
of
the
two
components
is
considered
important
because
it
considers
both
the

efficiency
of
the
ship
relative
to
other
ships
of
the
same
type
and
similar
size,
and
the
efficiency

within
the
type
overall.
By
design,
the
EEDI
generally
returns
lower
numbers,
indicating
better

efficiency,
for
larger
capacity
ships
because
the
amount
of
CO2
emitted
per
unit
of
transport
work

drops
as
ship
size
increases.
This
is
because
the
engine
power/fuel
consumption
and
cargo
capacity

do
not
increase
in
a
1:1
ratio.
Although
in
most
situations
comparisons
will
be
between
ships
of

similar
sizes,
it
is
important
to
also
reflect
the
varying
efficiency
between
different
size
classes.


Again
using
the
EEDI
calculations
for
bulk
carriers
as
an
example,
Figure
3
is
a
scattergram
of
EEDI

(Size)
Ratings
against
ship
size,
Figure
4
of
EEDI
(Type)
Ratings
against
ship
size,
and
Figure
5
of
EEDI

Rating
against
ship
size.


John A Lewis 26/11/10 15:03

Comment: New
scattergrams
are
provided

based
on
latest
methodology.




Figure
3.
Scattergram
of
EEDI
Size
Ratings
against
Ship
Size
for
all
bulk
carriers
in
the
database






Figure
4.
Scattergram
of
EEDI
Type
Ratings
against
Ship
Size
for
all
bulk
carriers
in
the
database




Figure
5.
Scattergram
of
EEDI
Ratings
against
Ship
Size
for
all
bulk
carriers
in
the
database


What
these
figures
show
is
that,
for
the
size
rating
(Figure
3),
there
is
a
relatively
even
spread
of

EEDI
above
and
below
zero
across
all
sizes,
whereas
for
the
type
rating
most
small
ships
(<
50,000
t)

have
negative
ratings
and
all
large
ships
(>
100,000
t)
have
a
positive
rating.
Combining
the
two
into

a
total
rating
(Figure
5)
results
in
a
more
even
distribution
with
more
small
ships
still
with
a
negative

rating,
and
more
large
ships
still
with
a
positive
rating,
but
with
positive
and
negative
ratings
evident

across
almost
the
full
size
range.


Data
Presentation


The
GHG
Ratings
are
presented
in
a
snapshot
summary
showing
the
actual
values
of
the
EEDI
as
A
to

G
Ratings
(Figure
6).
A
detailed
table
is
also
provided
which
includes
data
used
in
calculations,
the

standard
EEDI
value,
and
critical
numbers
used
in
the
calculation
of
the
ship
GHG
Rating
(Figure
7).




Patrick Quinn-Graham 26/11/10 15:03
Comment: Needs
updated
to
reflect
latest

%’s

per
Letter
Rating
–
ie:
A
=
7.5%











Figure
6.
Example
of
the
GHG
A
to
G
Rating
snapshot
for
an
individual
ship



John A Lewis 26/11/10 15:03

Comment: Is
this
to
be
deleted?

Rating
Database


The
Shippingefficiency.org
Rating
has
been
calculated
and
analysed
across
seven
of
the
major
ship

types
with
the
number
of
calculated
values
of
EEDI
for
each
selected
major
ship
type
as
follows:


Ship
Type
 EEDI


Crude
Oil
Tankers
 2,833


Product
Tankers
 4,847


Chemical
Tankers
 4,398


LPG
Tankers
 1,264


Bulk
Carriers
 9,625

 Containerships
 5,729


Vehicle
Carriers
 935


Total
 29,631


Scattergrams
of
the
calculated
EEDI
values
for
each
of
these
ship
types
against
capacity
(dwt,
cbm,

or
teu)
show
the
EEDI/capacity
relationship
to
be
best
represented
by
a

power
regression
line,

as

recognised
by
IMO
MEPC
in
their
establishment
of
an
EEDI
“reference
line”
for
new
ships.
Detailed

analysis
of
the
GHG
Ratings
across
ship
types
has
shown
that
the
method
used
to
develop
a

comparative
rating
of
EEDI
Ratings,
as
a
component
of
the
Shippingefficiency.org
Environmental

Rating,
is
applicable
to
all
of
these
ship
types.
The
method
therefore
provides
a
means
of
comparing

the
energy
efficiency
of
existing
ships.


However,
it
is
important
to
note
that
the
reliability
of
the
calculated
ratings
is
a
direct
function
of
the

reliability
of
the
source
data.

An
ongoing
priority
of
Shippingefficiency.org
is
to
either
verify
base

data
or
source
accurate
data,
and
this
will
be
used
to
continually
upgrade
and
enhance
the

environmental
rating
system.