Career | |
---|---|
Name: | Emma Maersk |
Operator: | A. P. Moller-Maersk Group |
Builder: | Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd, Denmark |
Launched: | 18 May 2006 |
In service: | 31 Aug 2006 |
Homeport: | Denmark, Taarbæk |
Identification: | ABS class no: 06151181 Call sign: OYGR2 IMO number: 9321483 MMSI no.: 220417000 |
General characteristics | |
Class and type: | Mærsk E-class container ship |
Tonnage: | 170,974 GT 55,396 NT |
Length: | 397 m (1,302 ft) |
Beam: | 56 m (184 ft) |
Draught: | 15.5 m (51 ft) |
Depth: | 30 m (98 ft) (deck edge to keel) |
Propulsion: | 80 MW (109,000 hp) Wärtsilä 14RT-Flex96c plus 30 MW (40,000 hp) from five Caterpillar 8M32 |
Speed: | 25.5 knots (47.2 km/h; 29.3 mph) |
Capacity: | 156,907 DWT 14,770+ TEU 1000 TEU (reefers) |
Crew: | 13, with room for 30 |
Notes: | [1] |
Emma Mærsk is the first container ship in the E-class of eight owned by the A. P. Moller-Maersk Group. When she was launched in 2006, Emma Mærsk was the largest container ship ever built. As of 2010, she and her seven sister ships are the longest container ships constructed and the longest ships currently in use, after the largest ship ever built, Seawise Giant, was permanently moored in 2004 and scrapped in 2010.[2] Officially, Emma Mærsk is able to carry around 11,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) or 14,770 TEU depending on definition. In May 2010, the class set a record of 15,011 TEU in Tanger-Med, Tangiers on sister Ebba Mærsk.[4]
Contents |
The ship was built at the Odense Steel Shipyard in Denmark. In June 2006, during construction, welding work caused a fire within her superstructure.[5][6] It spread rapidly through the accommodation section and bridge, which delayed the ship by six to seven weeks.
Emma Mærsk was named in a ceremony on 12 August 2006. The ship is named after Emma Mærsk, Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller's late wife. The ship set sail on her maiden voyage on 8 September 2006 at 02:00 hours from Aarhus, calling at Gothenburg, Bremerhaven, Rotterdam, Algeciras, the Suez Canal, and arrived in Singapore on 1 October 2006 at 20:05 hours. Emma Mærsk departed Singapore the next day, headed for Yantian in Shenzhen. She sailed on to Kobe, Nagoya, arrived at Yokohama on 10 October 2006, and returned via Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Tanjung Pelepas, the Suez Canal, Felixstowe, Rotterdam, Bremerhaven, Gothenburg and finally to Aarhus, with arrival at that port 11 November 2006 at 16:00 hours.[7]
She appeared in headlines prior to Christmas 2006, when she was dubbed SS Santa because she was bound for the United Kingdom from China loaded with Christmas goods. The return journey after Christmas 2006 saw her return to southern China, loaded with UK waste destined for recycling in China.[8]
Her appearance in the news prompted the State Environmental Protection Administration in China to promise to "closely watch the progress of investigation into the dumping of garbage in south China by Britain". Ministry officials added that no official approval had been given to any company in the area to import waste.[9]
Originally Maersk reported a capacity of 11,000 TEU (twenty-foot equivalent units) as the maximum capacity if all are fully loaded 14 ton containers, according to Maersk company's then method of calculating capacity,[10] which, at her introduction into service, was about 1,400 more containers than any other ship is capable of carrying.[11] However, Maersk also acknowledges the standard method of defining capacity, stating 14,770 TEU.[12]
By normal calculations, Emma Mærsk has a cargo capacity significantly greater than what is reported—between 13,500 and 15,200 TEU.[13][14] The difference between the official and estimated numbers is because Maersk calculates the capacity of a container ship by weight (in this case, 14 tons/container) that can be carried on a vessel. For Emma Mærsk, this is 11,000+ containers,[15] of which 1,000 can be reefers.[16] Other companies calculate the capacity of a container ship according to the maximum number of containers that can be put on the ship, independent of the weight of the containers. This number is always greater than the number calculated by the Maersk method.
Comparing the size of ships can be done in various ways. Comparing ships in different trades often comes down to simple dimensions or weight of cargo carried. Ships in the same trade can, usually, be compared more directly. One measure of vessel size is gross tonnage, which is a measure of volume. Here Emma Maersk, and her sisters, at about 170,000 gross tons, are clearly much bigger than—for example, MSC Daniela class, which are about 135,000 gross tons; a point to note is that the MSC ships are of a different design, with bridge well forward, and engine room and funnel well aft; this is claimed—by both builder and operator—to be slightly more efficient. The Maersk ships are some thirty metres longer, four metres wider, and have a slightly greater full load draft than the MSC vessels. Interestingly, the Maersk vessels appear, in photographs, to have much finer lines than the rather 'blocky' MSC ships, which would give the latter a higher block coefficient and so higher carrying capacity for their length times beam times draft. Maersk ships would be expected to be more fuel-efficient, however.
On 21 February 2011, Maersk ordered a family of ten even larger container ships from Daewoo, the Triple E class, with a capacity of 18,000 containers. A further ten ships were ordered in June 2011. The first is to be delivered in 2014.[17][18]
Emma Mærsk is powered by a Wärtsilä-Sulzer 14RTFLEX96-C engine, currently the world's largest single diesel unit, weighing 2,300 tons and capable of 109,000 horsepower (81 MW) when burning 3,600 US gallons (14,000 l)[19] of heavy fuel oil per hour. At economical speed, fuel consumptiom is 0.260 bs/hp/hour (1,660gal/hour).[20] The ship has several features to lower environmental damage, some of which include exhaust heat recovery and cogeneration.[21] Some of the exhaust gases are returned to the engine to improve economy and lower emissions,[22] and some are passed through a steam generator which then powers a Peter Brotherhood Ltd (Now Owned by Dresser-Rand) steam turbine and electrical generators to generate electricity. This creates an electrical output of 8.5MW,[23] equivalent to about 12 percent of the main engine power output. Some of this steam is also used directly as shipboard heat.[24] Five diesel generators can together produce 20.8MW,[23] giving a total electric output of 29MW.[16] Two 9MW electric motors also power the main propeller shaft.[23][25]
Two bow and two stern thrusters provide port manoeuvrability, and two pairs of stabilizer fins reduce rolling.[23]
Instead of biocides, used by much of the industry to keep barnacles off of the hull, a special silicone-based paint is used.[11] This increases the ship's efficiency by reducing drag while also protecting the ocean from biocides that may leak. The silicone paint covering the part of the hull below the waterline is credited with lowering the water drag enough to save 1200 tons of fuel per year. The ship has a bulbous bow, a standard feature for cargo ships.
The turning diameter at 24 knots (44 km/h) is 1.5 km. The engine is placed near midship to make best use of the rigidity of the hull and to maximize capacity. When banking 20 degrees, the bridge sways 35 metres.[26]
Emma Mærsk's regular round trip involves Ningbo, Xiamen, Hong Kong (westbound), Yantian (westbound), Algeciras (westbound), Rotterdam, Bremerhaven, Algeciras (eastbound), Yantian (eastbound), Hong Kong (eastbound) and Ningbo.[7][27][28] As of April 2011[update], the schedule also includes Gdansk, Aarhus and Gothenburg.[29]
Emma Mærsk and similar ships have been criticised for their burning of bunker fuel, which has a high sulphur content.[30] Fuel sulphur content is 2.5 to 4.5 percent which is over 2,000 times more than allowed in current automotive fuel.[30]
This fuel oil is not burnt in internationally-agreed Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs); there fuel with a maximum of 1.0% [2010] sulphur is permitted; the limit is to be reduced to 0.1% in 2015. Reduced sulphur in the fuel affects the lubrificatory properties, which could lead to lower reliability, and higher costs for maintenance and repair, over and above purchasing the more-expensive low-sulphur fuel.
External images | |
---|---|
Many photos of Emma | |
Technical images of hull and engine, pages 19-40 |
|