IEEE Electrification Magazine - September 2017 - 8

Problem Solved

Automatic

Autonomous
Problem
Detected

Remote
Cannot
Solve

Lost
Contact

Fail to Safe

Operator Back in Control
Emergency Response Needed
Figure 3. Switching modes. (Image courtesy of the MUNIN project.)

vessels must be improved considerably concerning reliability and
maintenance intervals as well. Otherwise, automatic mode will not be
reliable enough. Essentially, the level
of ambition must be that a vessel
should travel at least 30,000 km
without any maintenance needs or
alarms or repair, like a modern car. It
is likely due to the safety aspects
that such demands will become part
of the regulations, as discussed later.
The vessels that will take the longest to automate, if at all, are passenger vessels. Just like in airplanes
today, which in principle can be
flown without a pilot, there is the
psychological aspect for the passengers of having their life at the mercy
of a machine [for example, artificial
intelligence (AI) using big data to
assemble and analyze vast amounts
of data before making decisions]
that seems very hard to overcome at
present. However, this can change
after decades of experience with
automatic shipping if the track record is so good that there is a compelling case for letting the AI take
over routine jobs such as guiding a
vessel from a point to another point
via a defined route. In the foreseeable future, passenger vessels can
therefore be equipped with health
monitoring and possibly some
remote controlling to help them in
certain harbors.
Second, regulations are the most
significant hurdle as of today. Various nation states have a number of
incentives for digitalization depending

on their socio economic development. A poorly developed country
would want employment and hence
not be too interested in such a development. This is particularly true
for industries such as shipping and
ship building, which are both seen
as a low-entry industries for many
developing countries. Different
nation states therefore also have different interests in how these industries should develop. It is therefore
likely that progressive states like
those in northern Europe will move
first. They have a cost disadvantage
today and will normally welcome
automation/robotization in general.
We will consequently see autonomous vessels in these waters first.
Indeed, in Norway, the first autonomous ferries for short fjord crossings are underway.
However, it is beyond doubt that
the largest savings are from crossing
the world oceans. This will require
international agreements on a completely different scale. After all, having an automatic vessel at 50,000 t
traveling around should be of interest
to regulators from both traffic management and safety points of view.
The safety aspect will be huge and
involve equipment reliability, network
reliability, failure modes, AI performance, redundancy, etc. Today's performance levels of marine equipment
are not sufficient for automatic mode.
It is therefore likely that remote and
autonomous modes will come first.
Health monitoring is available today
and used by a number of vessels, so

I E E E E l e c t r i f i cati o n M agaz ine / SEPTEMBER 2017

the step to remote mode is definitively
within reach in the next few years.
Both Kongsberg and Rolls-Royce
Marine, to mention just two companies, are working hard on this issue.
Third, the economic performance
of the new technology is usually
closely linked to the needs, the willingness to pay for these needs, and
what can be simplified/improved
compared with incumbent technologies to reduce costs. At the end of the
day, it is likely that in the marine
industry, being so dealing oriented,
that cost will be the deciding issue
after regulatory requirements are
met. The complete elimination of
crew is therefore an important goal
because crews constitute approximately 25% of operating expenses
(OPEX). This is where vessels going
PTP will have their greatest advantage over work boats of various
shapes. However, there is a subsequent advantage as well. Once the
crew is eliminated, the transit time is
less of an issue from a cost perspective. Indeed, by reducing the speed,
fuel can be saved. With fuel constituting approximately 50% of OPEX,
great savings can be achieved here if
the speed is reduced. For example, a
containership of around 8,000 TEU
would consume about 225 t of fuel
per day at 24 kn, whereas at 21 kn,
this consumption drops to approximately 150 t/day, which is a 33%
decrease. Clearly, the potential for
cost savings is staggering-roughly
50% compared with the OPEX today-
if the digitalization at sea takes a
similar route as it is doing in many
other industries. There is no reason to believe that this will not
take place.
In the remainder of this issue of
IEEE Electrification Magazine, we will
read about the latest technologies
from a number of sources. I think
that it will be demonstrated quite
amply that technologies are moving
toward the scenarios outlined here.
The only questions are when and
how quickly.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Electrification Magazine - September 2017