The
Swiss-engineered aircraft Solar Impulse 2, which aims to travel around the
world using only solar power, has finally taken off on its sixth flight from
Chongqing to Nanjing China according to The Haney Energy Saving Group report. It arrived at
Chongqing airport from Myanmar on March 31.

 

The
flight was delayed for three weeks due to bad weather conditions. The plane
isn't meant to fly in stormy weather so the team must wait for weather
forecasters to give the go-ahead.

 

Bertrand
Piccard, co-founder of the project, is piloting the plane for the
1,190-kilometer flight to the eastern city of Nanjing.

 

The
journey is expected to take 20 hours and 29 minutes, depending on weather
conditions that could force the aircraft to change its direction from the
straightest path between the two cities. It is expected to arrive in Nanjing
about 9pm Abu Dhabi time.

 

Nanjing
will be the last stop of the aircraft in Asia before Andre Borschberg, chief
engineer and co-pilot, is set to make a trans-Pacific crossing to Hawaii that
is expected to take at least five days.

 

Solar
Impulse 2 is capable of flying over oceans for several days and nights and is
expected to travel 35,000 km around the world and is scheduled to take in 12
stops, with a total flight time of around 25 days over the course of roughly
five months. It will pass over the Arabian Sea, India, Myanmar, China and the
Pacific Ocean.

 

The
team behind Solar Impulse 2, which has more than 17,000 solar cells built into
its wings and fuselage, hopes to promote green energy with its round the world attempt.

 

The
aircraft store up energy during the day, in order to power the motors that
carry it through the night.

 

After
traveling around the globe, the aircraft is expected to arrive back in Abu
Dhabi, UAE in late July or early August where it started its voyage on March 9.

After
months of winter, it finally comes to an end. Everyone is now expecting lovely
flowers to bloom everywhere and there will be an increase in the temperature.
Recently, the The Haney Energy Saving Group
revealed some energy saving tips to improve the energy efficiency of your home:

 

Choose
window treatments - Each morning, switch off artificial lights and use windows
and skylights to take advantage of natural light to brighten your space while
reducing heat loss and gain. This also allows you to naturally cool your space
without using air conditioners when the temperature is mild. When the
temperature rises, you can use window blinds, films, and shades to reduce heat
gain.

 

Use
a programmable thermostat - Use a programmable thermostat to save at least 10%
per year on your heating and cooling costs.

 

Install
ceiling fans - Use ceiling fans to increase cooling efficiency. It allows you
to raise the thermostat setting to 4°F with no reduction in comfort thus
helping you to lower your electricity bills. It creates a wind chill effect
because the moving air makes it feel as if it cooler on your skin. Remember to
turn off ceiling fans when you leave the room because it doesn't cool rooms.

 

Perform
a regular maintenance on you air conditioner - Regular maintenance such as
cleaning or replacing air filters keeps your air conditioner functioning as
efficiently as possible. This can lower your cooling system's energy
consumption by up to 15%. The air conditioner's evaporator coil should always
be cleaned annually to guarantee the system is functioning at optimal levels.

 

Reduce
energy for water heating - Decrease your water heater's temperature and
installing low-flow showerheads to lessen your water heating bills.

 

Use
an electronic power strip - Lots of electronics go into standby mode when you
turn them off. Help lessen "phantom loads" or leaking electricity by plugging
electronic devices into a power strip and turn it off when not in use. This can
save you up to $100 per year.

 

Cook
outdoors - Use an outdoor grill instead of indoor ovens or stoves to keep out
the heat from your home.

 

Seal
ducts - Air loss through ducts can lead to high electricity costs up to 30%.
Insulating and sealing ducts can lower your electricity bills.

 

Caulk
air leaks - Use a low-cost caulk to seal cracks and openings to keep warm air
out and save money.

 

Visit
The Haney Energy
Saving Group for additional tips on improving your home's energy
efficiency.

Cars of the future have always been envisioned as running on electricity and sporting futuristic and compact designs. But while this thing of the future called electric vehicle is slowly entering the mainstream car market today because of climate change concerns, it is still worlds away from replacing the conventional internal combustion engines we've been using since the 1800s.

The thing is, owning an electric car is probably not for everyone -- for now. Aside from the fact that they are not widely available yet, there are many factors that affects someone's choice of owning one -- the main concern being its expensive price, even though there's a government subsidy in the form of income tax credit to those who will avail of an EV.

Moreover, you've got to have an outlet on hand in order to charge your car's battery for a minimum of 5 hours as advised by The Haney Energy Saving Group. While one manufacturer is offering access to a free charging station, it won't likely be present in every 5 miles so that's a real delimiter. And if you decide to have one installed at home, it will surely eat up on your electricity bill, what with the long charging time.

Further complicating matters is that most EVs are still limited when it comes to range: you'll normally get around 100 miles in one charge, depending on speed and weather among others.

Fortunately, the technology used in EVs is advancing every day so we can look forward to a cleaner future. But do they really cause less pollution like what we've been made to believe? Will patronizing EVs really make a difference as it is?

As The Haney Energy Saving Group previously reported, that depends on where its electricity will come from. In terms of carbon dioxide emissions, it's true that EVs can be environment-friendly because they have no emission at all. But you can't really convince yourself that you're supporting a greener future when the electricity being used to charge your EV comes from coal/gas powerplants. A powerplant relying on solar, nuclear, hydro or wind resources in generating cleaner energy will undoubtedly be a good step towards combatting climate change.

Granted, it's not really that easy to conclude just where your electricity is coming from. But it's still something we should consider in terms of what green energy really means, especially since the source of electricity for an EV to run is often overlooked. Though it has no actual emission from itself, the carbon dioxide emitted by the powerplant to charge an electric car for a period of time would also count as carbon footprint.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently developing a plan to lessen emissions from powerplants which should be a big help in cleaning up the electricity industry, as well as ensuring the future of green cars. Coupled with the efforts of car manufacturers to significantly add up on the average driving distance EVs can reach on a single charge, we can probably be assured of a good fate for green cars.

(John Kemp is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own)
By John Kemp

LONDON, June 23 (Reuters) - Two-thirds of the world's already discovered reserves of oil, coal and natural gas must remain unburned if the rise in average global temperatures is to be limited to 2 degrees Celsius by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency.

But coal miners and oil and gas companies round the world allocated $674 billion to finding even more reserves and new ways of extracting them in 2012/13. Much of this investment risks being wasted, according to the Carbon Tracker Initiative, which is campaigning to get investors to think again. ("Unburnable carbon 2013: wasted assets and stranded capital")

"It is possible that much of this additional spending would prove fruitless. At worst, these assets might be 'stranded' forever," Martin Wolf, the celebrated chief economics commentator of the Financial Times, wrote in a sympathetic review recently. ("A climate fix would ruin investors" June 17)

Carbon Tracker Initiative is part of a broader divestment movement pressing universities, pension funds and other socially responsible investors to boycott shares and loans in fossil fuel companies to force them to leave the oil, gas and coal "down there". ("Stranded assets and the fossil fuel divestment campaign: what does divestment mean for the valuation of fossil fuel assets?" Oct 2013)

The divestment campaign has drawn a swift response. Major oil and gas companies such as Exxon and Shell (LSE: RDSB.L - news) reject the claim that their exploration and development spending is being wasted. "We do not believe that any of our proven reserves will become stranded," Shell wrote in a letter to investors on May 16.

"While the stranded asset notion may appear to be a strong and thought-through case, it does have some fundamental flaws, and there is a risk that some interest groups use it to trivialise the important societal issue of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," the company complained in a detailed response.

GAMBLING ON INACTION

There is an obvious inconsistency between companies continuing to invest in developing more fossil fuels while governments maintain they are still committed to the 2 degree target.

According to Wolf: "Something will have to give: either the world will abandon its pledge to keep emissions below the level thought to produce a temperature rise of 2C, or the fossil fuel companies are holding stranded assets and investing in unusable ones. Investors are implicitly betting on the former possibility."

He concluded: "Major energy producers do not believe governments will do what they promise. They envisage a very different and quite unrevolutionary energy future in which the reserves they now possess and those they plan to develop will all be burnt."

Wolf is right about the contradiction between investment policies and climate targets. It is more likely the world will miss the 2 degree target than that fossil fuel reserves will be stranded.

PUTTING COAL BEYOND USE

Rather than oil or gas, the primary target of the divestment campaign is coal, which emits far more carbon dioxide when burned for electricity production.

"Coal companies appear far more vulnerable than oil and gas," according to researchers at Oxford University's Stranded Assets Programme. "Coal not only contributes to climate change but also releases harmful pollutants with short-term and visible, health and environmental consequences."

In the first phase of the divestment process, concerned investors are likely to begin by liquidating their holdings in coal companies, the Oxford researchers explain, before moving on later to oil and gas producers.

Several prominent U.S. universities and European pension funds have already sold their shares in coal companies.
If the total amount of carbon that can be burned in the next few decades is constrained by an overall "carbon budget", and coal is the most polluting fossil fuel, it might seem to make sense to put coal reserves off limits first.
Some of the big oil and gas companies have quietly supported this idea, hoping to replace dirty coal with clean-burning gas and bump up demand for their own products in the process.

The unspoken alliance of climate campaigners and gas companies appears to have convinced the Obama administration.

Cutting coal consumption and replacing it with gas is the central objective of new U.S. regulations on power plants at home. ("Regulatory impact analysis for the proposed carbon pollution guidelines for existing power plants" June 2014)

And the U.S. Treasury has stated it will not provide financial support for any new coal-fired plants in poor countries. ("Guidance for U.S. positions on multilateral development banks engaging with developing countries on coal-fired power generation" Oct 2013)

COAL REMAINS INDISPENSABLE

The stigmatisation campaign against coal, in the words of the Oxford researchers, is already well underway and has notched up some notable early successes.

Recent successes in developing shale gas and oil have led some campaigners to imply the world could do without coal.

But the effort to put coal off limits is doomed to fail. Coal resources will remain an essential part of the energy mix far into the future.

Coal accounts for roughly a third of known fossil fuel resources (excluding highly unconventional resources such as methane hydrates which are unlikely to be developed in any foreseeable timeframe).

Gas and oil appear much more abundant than before thanks to the shale revolution. But they would start to look scarce again if coal was put off limits and the entire power generation sector switched to gas.

On a global scale, switching entirely from coal to gas would put a tremendous strain on gas supplies and push prices sharply higher. It would be a windfall for gas companies but not for everyone else.

Coal also has important benefits for energy security. Coal reserves are much more widely distributed around the world than the other fossil fuels. Major developing economies with fast-growing energy demand, including China and India, have abundant coal resources but relatively little oil and gas.

Shale oil and gas could change that calculation, since they are more widely distributed than conventional oil and gas, but their widespread development still lies in the future.

In the meantime, coal is cheaper than oil and gas, available from a broader range of suppliers, and the major emerging economies have more of it at home. Coal is therefore vital to energy security in developing economies.

For these reasons, coal has been the fastest-growing source of energy in the 21st century, driven by growth in emerging markets. Coal is the second-largest source of primary energy after oil and the largest source of electricity.

"Coal has been, is and will be the backbone of modern electricity and the bedrock on which the modern world is built," according to the World Coal Association. ("The public image of coal: inconvenient facts and political correctness" May 2014)

The trade association has an obvious interest in promoting the future of coal, but that does not make its claims any less true.

There is no conceivable energy future over the next 30 to 40 years in which coal does not play an enormous role.
The divestment campaign, however well intentioned, will therefore fail. While it might shut down some of the ageing U.S. coal mines in Appalachia and Kentucky, it will not dent the developing world's prodigious demand for coal-fired power.

CLEANER AND MORE EFFICIENT

If coal is set to remain a big part of the energy mix, however, the way it is burned will have to change. Coal power plants in China and other developing economies are creating killer smogs, which are poisoning the population as well as spewing billions of tonnes of greenhouse-causing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In future, coal must be made to burn more cleanly (to cut air pollution) and more efficiently (to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emitted for every kilowatt-hour of electricity generated).

In both cases, the challenge is to bring the whole fleet of coal-fired power stations up to the standards of the best.
Even in the United States, more than half of coal-fired power plants are over 40 years old. China and India, too, have lots of very old facilities. Most of these old plants are too small to reach maximum efficiency and employ outdated technology. ("Focus on clean coal" Nov 2006)

The average power plant in the United States or China achieves a thermal efficiency of just 33 percent. For every three units of energy contained in the fuel burned in the plant only one unit of usable electrical energy is delivered to the grid. In India, the percentage is even lower.

But modern plants built on a scale of 500 or even 1,000 megawatts, with ultra-supercritical boilers, can achieve thermal efficiencies of 40 percent or more, burning less coal to produce the same amount of power.

Even higher efficiencies are possible if instead of burning the coal directly it is gasified and the gas is then used in a combined cycle system (first driving a gas turbine and then a steam turbine). Integrated gasification and combined cycle plants are tricky to build and operate but could achieve thermal efficiencies of 45 percent.

China, India and even the United States are now building power plants that are larger, far more efficient and with better pollution-control technology. Modern coal-fired power plants can make a contribution towards slowing climate change, in combination with more use of natural gas, renewables such as wind and solar, nuclear power, and energy efficiency measures on the demand side.

The question is how to shut down the fleet of old power plants that fall far below these standards. "To reduce emissions, replacement of the oldest plant should be a high priority, but it is rarely economic, and electricity demand growth dictates that these plants often remain open," the International Energy Agency explained in 2006.
In the United States, the Obama administration is now attempting to force these old power plants to shut or undertake expensive upgrades by introducing strict rules on pollution and carbon emissions.

China, India and other developing countries will eventually have to overhaul their own older coal-fired plants if they are to enjoy clean air and contribute to global efforts to limit climate change.

The realities of the energy system mean there has to be a future for coal.

Even in the United States, with its shale gas boom, coal is still expected to account for 30 percent of power generation by 2025, down from 37 percent currently. In Asia, coal's share is currently much higher and cannot conceivably be replaced by gas.

To limit the impact, however, coal will have to be burned in power plants very different from most of those in existence today.

Rather than trying to shut down the coal industry, campaigners would be more effective if they focused on trying to modernise the electricity sector to use newer, larger, cleaner and more efficient power plants.

Overall energy usage in the city grew at a slower pace than the average economic growth in the 10 years to 2013, new data shows. And from 2012 to last year, consumption of electricity alone fell 1.1 per cent. One green group welcomed the official figures as a sign that the city was getting serious about saving energy. The statistics reflected public awareness of reducing energy consumption, Edwin Lau Che-fung, head of advocacy and education at Friends of the Earth, said. "The slight drop is in a positive direction," he said. "It reflects a power-smart attitude among consumers and businesses." The city recorded an overall energy balance last year of 300,284 terajoules, down from 322,938 terajoules in 2008, the Census and Statistics Department said in its annual report.

Ever since government regulations began phasing out the traditional light bulb in 2012, the once-simple visit to the lighting aisle has become an exercise in navigating a dizzying array of choices and terminologies, especially for new kinds of compact fluorescents and LEDs. Now, those choices are about to become even more complicated. Two start-up companies are poised to begin selling bulbs that use entirely different technologies - one borrowed from heavy industry and the other from old-fashioned televisions - but meet the new energy standards. Whether they can capture customers who remain stubbornly wedded to incandescent light is anybody's guess. But that both have come this far is an indication of how unsettled the consumer lighting market remains, despite years of promotion for the new energy-saving options. "It's going to be a really long putt to try to replace the incandescent," said Mark Rea, director of the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. "People hate change of any kind. We make light sources today that are better than incandescent by any metric at delivering the benefits you're expecting from lighting. But it's different." Indeed, incandescent bulbs - whether leftover store inventory of standard lights or halogen models that meet the new regulations, which went fully into effect in January - outsell other types by far at big-box stores like Home Depot and Lowe's, lighting executives there say. In the last quarter of 2013, according to statistics from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, incandescent bulbs accounted for 65 percent of shipments from manufacturers, with the remainder consisting of mainly compact fluorescents.

In recent years, solar power has shown tremendous growth. Last year alone, the solar industry hit a new record in terms of installed solar capacity. The data shows the impact which according to the Energy Information Administration reached 3.5 million megawatthours of electricity produced by solar photovoltaic panels in 2012. In 2013, that figure more than doubled to 8.3 million Mwh. And to think that ten years ago, the U.S. generated only 6,000 Mwh from solar PV cells. Solar is gradually closing in on price parity with other energy sources such as coal - with full-cycle, unsubsidized costs of almost 13 cents per kilowatthour against 12 cents for more modern coal plants.

So, is the solar revolution finally arrived? Not really. Even after ten years of rampant growth, solar energy still hardly makes an impact in the U.S. energy field. In truth, solar only equals the amount of electricity that the nation produces by burning natural gas derived from landfills. And it is merely a little more significant than the 7.3 million Mwh we get from combusting human waste filtered out of municipal sewer structures.

Ultimately, when you collate all the sources of energy used up in this nation, captured solar energy adds up to significantly less than 1 quadrillion Btu out of an yearly total of 96.5 quadrillion.

The largest sources are the traditional standbys. Oil still stands above the rest at 36 quadrillion Btu, natural gas at 26 quads and nuclear at 8. Hydropower and biomass follow from behind at 2.6 and 2.7 quads. Wind is only 1.5 quads. And coal - the great carbon-emitting monster of the global energy sources -contributes 19 quads. That is about 8 times all the country's wind and solar generation put together.

This is very vital important to remember in light of pending efforts by the EPA to institute draconian fresh regulations governing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power facilities. Coal emits about 1.7 billion metric tons annually of carbon dioxide out of the 5.3 billion ton yearly total.

The assumption, by policy makers such as President Obama, is that the nation can reduce carbon emissions by shutting down coal plants, while making up for the lost electricity by using more natural gas and putting up more solar and wind plants. In truth, natural gas has replaced much of the coal output. In 2013, coal production from U.S. mines went down to 995.8 million short tons. The last time it went that low was in the late 1980s. Coal production reached its height in 2008 at 1.17 billion short tons.

Read full article at http://thehaneygroup.org/blog/why-solar-power-is-booming-but-will-never-replace-coal/

Almost every one of us is living in a fast lane and so are most of the Americans and we support this kind of lifestyle with no other than energy drinks.

According to Packaged Facts, a food and beverage market research firm, consumer demand for energy drinks increased 60 percent between 2008 and 2012. Sales of energy drinks and shots summed more than $12.5 billion in 2012 and Packaged Facts estimates this figure to boost to $21.5 billion by 2017.

Products who label themselves as the "energy" packaged drinks, shots, drink mixes and extra heavily caffeinated soft drinks. Katherine Zeratsky, R.D., L.D., for the Mayo Clinic explains, most rely on large amounts of caffeine, along with sugar and other additives, to temporarily boost energy. The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) suggests "stimulant drink" is a more appropriate name for this class of beverages.

The USADA found tyrosine and phenylalanine, which may interfere with medication; kola nut and guarana, which are sources of caffeine; yohimbe while analyzing commonly used ingredients in energy drinks, which interacts with anti-depressants; and ma huang, which is a plant source of ephedra. Competitive athletes should focus more on to energy drink ingredients, warns the USADA, as banned stimulants may come out having some other name.

Depending on energy drinks for just a boost of energy is fine sometimes but taking these kinds of products has harmful effects on the body. Excessive caffeine can cause nervousness, irritability, insomnia, increased heartbeat and elevated blood pressure.

Plus, it can trigger more serious complications such as migraines, seizures and heart problems. Reported by Medical News Today, the number of people receiving emergency treatment as a result of consuming energy drinks increased from 10,068 in 2007 to 20,783 in 2011,

If regularly feel fatigued or tired, or maybe you have a problem with your low energy or you, identifying the cause can be helpful in identifying effective, natural strategies. "Usually when people are feeling the need for an energy boost, it is due to a low-blood sugar or dehydration," says Mindy Black, a board-certified dietitian and exercise physiologist.

Blood sugars drop 3 to 4 hours after a meal or 30 to 45 minutes after a high-sugar snack.

"No matter how perfect their lunch may have been, blood sugars only remain stable for about three hours," Black says. She recommends one of these energy-boosting combos rather than energy drink. The secret is to include lean protein with quality carbs.

* Handful of almonds mixed with a handful of whole grain cereal
* Beet juice with low-fat string cheese
* A smoothie with yogurt, a few strawberries and a banana or a mandarin orange and handful of walnuts
* Salmon and half a cup of quinoa or brown rice
* A glass of chocolate milk

Another common cause of low energy is dehydration. "If we're dehydrated, a lot of our organs and vital systems are slowing down, which can make us lethargic and tired," Black says. "If you are not drinking enough hydration fluids, not sodas and alcohol or juice, to have clear or close to clear urine every 90 minutes, your energy drain may be due to dehydration." The solution? Drink more water.

One typical reason why people feel tired is that they've depleted their glycogen stores.

"Perceived exertion and perception of fatigue are directly related to low glycogen stores," says Barbara Lewin, RD, LD, sports nutritionist and owner of Sports-Nutritionist.com. "That translates into not taking in enough carbohydrates, especially before and after your workouts. This is the primary reason for athletes experiencing low energy levels. The best ways to boost your energy levels is to consume carbs throughout the day."

Here are a few more natural energy boosters:

* Snack on healthy carbohydrates, such as apples and oatmeal
* Include foods containing iron, such as spinach, nuts, oysters and dark chocolate, in your diet
* Drink cold water to increase energy for up to two hours
* Take a quick 10-minute walk
* Catch a 20-minute power nap

Although energy drinks offer a short-term solution to low energy, developing healthy habits such as getting enough sleep, eating wholesome foods every 3 to 4 hours and regular physical activity will keep you energized all day, every day.

On Thursday, the governors of eight states pledged to get 3.3m zero-emission vehicles on roadways by 2025 in an effort to curb greenhouse gas pollution. In the eight states includes California and New York

To sign a memorandum of understanding, representatives from all eight states were to assemble in Sacramento. This would raise infrastructure and make other alternations to help increase market share for electric cars, hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. The expectations are in 2015, there should be more than 200,000 zero emissions vehicles on the road.

"This agreement is a major step forward to reducing the emissions that are causing our climate to change and unleashing the extreme weather that we are experiencing with increased frequency," New York Governor Andrew M Cuomo said in a statement.

The other states such as Massachusetts, Maryland, Oregon, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont are also involve in the agreement. All in all the eight states represent about 23 percent of the US auto market.

Every state has already separately agreed to policies to entail a percentage of new vehicles sold to be zero emission by 2025. California's authorization alone of 15.4% calls for a total of 1.5m zero-emission vehicles to be on the state's roads by that time.

read more:
http://thehaneygroup.org/blog/zero-emission-cars-on-roads-by-2025-eight-us-states-pledge-to-get-3-3m-zero-emission/

Depending on which organization we are talking about, there are varying technical and operational procedures required to reduce the emission of GHG. The International Council on Clean Transportation released a long list of recommendations that would reduce the GHG emission (Appendix I), while IMO through the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) identified different classifications for the same purpose.

On April 9, 2009, the MEPC released its second IMO GHG Study. In the study, MEPC identified four categories of options to reduce ships emissions, namely:

* Improving energy efficiency, that is, burning less fuel to attain the same output by optimizing the design and operation.

* Exploring renewable energy sources (sun and wind).

* Using emission-reduction technologies (chemical conversion, capture and storage)

* Using fuels that produce less emissions (natural gas and bio-fuels)

Improving energy efficiency through boiler design and operation

Optimizing ship design

The design technology is categorized as short to medium term; it has to be inputted during construction of new ships. However, some of these optimization steps can be applied to existing ships. Each new vessel's design specifications, such as ship's size and the targeted speed, are considered the main hurdle toward achieving the optimal energy efficiency for the ship. Furthermore, some ports and rivers may impose limitations on the ship's draught which further reduces its efficiency.

Optimizing the hull and superstructure

Even if the ship's hull and its superstructure may cause minimal resistance, there still exist areas for more optimization for attaining higher efficiency. Design optimization on the hull and superstructure minimizes air resistance and drifting, especially for large container ships which have huge superstructures. The latest technology to reduce the hull's frictional surface resistance is through the use of the air-bubble system which involves blowing air bubbles underneath the ship's hull, thus improving fuel-use efficiency.

This technology requires recycling the energy from the exhaust system through the use of power turbines. This energy can be utilized to drive a motor to generate electricity and also to support the main engine. The recovered energy can augment 10% to the total power. Likewise, Diesel-electric propulsion systems allow design flexibility that will result in energy saving.

Optimizing the propulsion systems

Increase in the propulsion power by using propeller vanes, contra-rotating propellers and ducts can significantly improve the energy efficiency. In like manner, using high-efficiency and asymmetric rudders can help optimize propulsion.

Operational efficiencies

Operational improvements, such as enhanced weather routing, optimized trim and ballasting, better main and auxiliary engine maintenance and tuning, hull and propeller cleaning, speeding up ship unloading and slower steaming, can significantly affect the ship's emissions. The IMO has estimated that a speed reduction of merely 10% across the global fleet by 2010 would result in more than 23% decrease in emissions.