It is the same with the “eco” ship, which is a term given, with a veneer of hope, by shipbuilders anxious to present their products in a new and attractive light, to encourage owners to purchase them and keep their shipyards in operation, despite the gross oversupply of shipping across the world. Here again, we may think that we know what the shipbuilders mean in this context, but there is a lack of definition of what constitutes “economy”.
There is nothing new about shipbuilders branding their products “economy” in order to meet the climate of the times. British shipyards, in the inter-war years, were adept in producing their “economy” designs. But in those days, what was on offer was probably better understood – it was a cheap, no-frills ship that was slow and would consume very little fuel. The owner knew what he was getting.
The “eco” ships on offer currently might be considered reasonably inexpensive, as shipbuilding prices have fallen from the previous heights. They will tend to be what a few years ago might be described as “standard”, with a limited variety of equipment choices available in the specification. But they will also offer more economical machinery and a hullform and underwater hydrodynamics which will offer improved performance; therein lies the complexity.
Critics sometimes suggest that they are underpowered, and while delivering the daily consumption and speed advertised in favourable weather, will, like the “economy” ships of old, be very vulnerable to head seas and winds and possibly difficult to control when light. Their designers, not unnaturally, will suggest that they are answering a need in producing their sustainable products and that they will perform better than the existing units in the owner’s fleet, which the owner might conceivably wish to recycle.
Other critics have pointed out that merely by slowing down their existing units, they have been able to assist both their own economics and the needs of the environment. The argument will doubtless continue, just as long as the shipyards see gaps in their order books and as long as owners see bargains. The wider debate about global overcapacity and whether the industry as a whole, thinking towards its long term health and balanced demand, ought to be buying any new ships while this huge overhang of tonnage, remains. Is such ordering “sustainable”?