Energy-saving technologies (ESTs), including new digital solutions, offer a cost-effective and reliable pathway to reducing emissions, while also reducing the overall demand for carbon-neutral fuels. These technologies provide immediate benefits by lowering fuel consumption, making the current business case for their adoption stronger, especially when compared to the higher costs of alternative fuels. At the same time, ongoing innovation in carbon-neutral fuel technologies and ESTs plays a crucial role in advancing new solutions and improving their accessibility and commercial viability. This chapter gives an overview of EST uptake in newbuilding and retrofits, key developments for emerging digital technologies in shipping and shipbuilding as well as innovation trends in the industry, by assessing patenting activity in low/zero-emission technologies.
The Role of Shipbuilding in Maritime Decarbonisation
Abstract
This chapter examines the evolving landscape of newbuilding and retrofitting of energy saving technologies, digital technologies and trends in climate change mitigation technology patenting for maritime and waterways transport. Several key conclusions can be drawn from the analysis.
Energy saving Technologies (ESTs) are increasingly adopted by the global fleet (29% of tonnage), with opportunities for further retrofitting work. Japan and China are main suppliers in ESTs to the global fleet, with Chinese shipbuilders expected to see substantial growth in their supply based on the current orderbook.
EST retrofits have increased but show strong geographical concentration: there is a clear upward trend in both the retrofitting of EST, with China emerging as a leading player in both the retrofitting of propeller and hull ESTs. A significant proportion of retrofit activities, particularly wind EST and carbon capture and storage retrofits, are also being carried out by shipyards in Europe. For retrofits of EST technologies, bulk carriers and containerships are most retrofitted across different technology types (making up 32% and 29%, respectively).
Vessels are at similar age at the time of retrofit but undergo different retrofitting lengths: the average age of vessels being retrofitted with ESTs is around 10 years, pointing towards a trend of relatively younger vessels undergoing EST and alternative fuel retrofits. This pattern could imply an industry perspective that retrofitting newer vessels serves as a strategic approach to ensure their commercial viability and regulatory compliance in the mid- to long term. Fuel conversions generally require more time to complete compared to other retrofit types (+45 days), potentially indicating a risk of bottlenecks in retrofitting capacity as demand increases.
Digitalisation is slowly increasing and plays a key role for data collection and monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV): despite the potential of digitalisation in shipping in enhancing operational efficiency and reducing emissions and growing customer demand for vessels integrated with advanced digital technologies, the maritime industry’s uptake of ‘smart’ technology is slowed by higher costs and lower developmental stages of new technologies compared to other industries.
The global patenting activity in low/zero-emission maritime technologies has decreased: despite the growing pressure to decarbonise the maritime sector, the share of low/zero-emission innovation in maritime technologies peaked between 2010 and 2015. The EU and Japan have consistently shown the most patent filings in this field, but China has rapidly increased its patenting activity in the past five years, surpassing other key innovating countries.
With the limited supply of alternative fuels and gradual transition to a low/zero-emission fleet, complementary solutions are essential to meeting the shipping industry’s emissions reduction targets.
Across the fleet, ESTs are being increasingly adopted by shipowners to reduce emissions and comply with the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)’s tightening energy efficiency and carbon intensity regulations. The use of ESTs offers several key advantages. They reduce energy costs and contribute to the reduction of cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over time, providing significant long-term environmental benefits. They also decrease the shipping industry’s dependency on renewable energy sources, which may face supply limitations as demand increases, and, by improving energy efficiency onboard, these technologies can significantly lower the overall cost of the transition to alternative fuels. In fact, estimates suggest that investments in onboard energy efficiency could reduce the demand for investment in alternative fuel production by up to 10 times, making the transition more economically viable for the industry (Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping, 2022[1]).
Table 3.1 provides an overview of selected technology types, their estimated cost as well as emissions reduction potential based on IMO GreenVoyage2050’s Energy Efficiency Technologies Information Portal (IMO Green Voyage 2050, 2024[2]). Complementary information on onboard carbon capture is based on DNV’s latest estimates (DNV, 2024[3]).
Source: IMO GreenVoyage2050 (2024), Energy Efficiency Technologies Information Portal, https://greenvoyage2050.imo.org/technology-groups/#EnergyConsumers (Accessed on 30 September 2024).
In the global fleet, as of October 2024, ESTs were installed on over 9,397 ships, representing around 35% of the fleet’s tonnage. Propulsion-related ESTs, such as propeller ducts, pre-swirl stators, rudder bulbs, wake equalising ducts, and propeller boss cap fins, have seen the most widespread adoption, with 14,435 vessels either already fitted, retrofitted, or set to be fitted in the orderbook. Hull-related ESTs, including air lubrication systems, bow enhancements, and hull fins, have been implemented on 4,554 vessels. Although wind, solar, and engine room ESTs have seen slower uptake, they are now gaining traction, with 160 wind ESTs, 144 solar ESTs, and 393 engine room ESTs installed across the fleet and orderbook. Notably, wind and propulsion-related ESTs have a high proportion of retrofits compared to newbuild installations, indicating the growing importance of retrofitting as a strategy for improving energy efficiency in the existing fleet (Clarksons Research, 2024[4]).
Source: OECD calculations based on data from World Fleet Register, Clarksons Research, https://www.clarksons.net/wfr/fleet (2024).
Japan and China emerge as the main suppliers of ESTs to the global fleet, making up around 28% respectively. Korea and Indonesia are also notable suppliers. The market for equipment suppliers is diverse, with numerous countries from different regions of the world (Asia, Europe and North America) providing around or below 5% of ESTs within the global fleet (Figure 3.2).
Source: OECD calculations based on data from World Fleet Register, Clarksons Research, https://www.clarksons.net/wfr/fleet (2024)
3.1.1. Deep dive on EST retrofits
The average age of the global fleet is increasing, currently standing at 13 years on a gross tonnage (GT) weighted basis, up from a low of 9.7 years in 2013. Further, with 34% of GT now over 15 years old and increasingly stringent decarbonisation measures being implemented, many vessels face potential regulatory compliance challenges. According to Clarksons Research, under the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII), it is estimated that approximately 45% of the existing tanker, bulk carrier, and container fleets could receive a D or E rating by 2026 unless modifications are made to their speed or specifications (Clarksons Research, 2024[5]). This context makes retrofitting ESTs an increasingly attractive option to extend the operational life of older vessels and improve their energy efficiency to meet regulatory requirements. Figure 3.3 illustrates the trend in retrofitting vessels with ESTs from 2018 to 2024.
Total retrofits increased from 101 in 2018 to 408 in 2023, with propeller ESTs being the most widely adopted, growing from 96 vessels in 2018 to 352 in 2023. Hull and engine room ESTs have also seen increased uptake, while wind and solar technologies have experienced slower adoption. The following section will explore key retrofits in more detail, breaking them down by country and vessel type to better understand which vessels are being retrofitted and which countries have the greatest capacity for retrofits.
Note: Data for 2024 is only available until Sep 2024.
Source: OECD calculations based on data from World Fleet Register, Clarksons Research, https://www.clarksons.net/wfr/fleet (2024).
Hull, CCS, solar and wind EST retrofits
Within the selected group of EST retrofits, representing technologies that saw limited uptake before 2020, hull modifications are the most prevalent form, accounting for 51 of the documented retrofits. This is followed by onboard CCS with a total of 26 retrofits, wind energy-saving technologies with 23, and solar power implementations, which are the least common with only 4 cases. Throughout the period studied, retrofits in selected ESTs were relatively rare until a notable increase in adoption in 2020 and a significant surge in 2023. This upswing is primarily attributed to increases in hull modifications as well as CCS and wind energy technologies retrofits. The first instances of CCS retrofitting emerged in 2021, marking it as the most recent technology to be adopted (Figure 3.4). The significant increase in retrofits in 2023 may reflect ship owners’ reaction to and anticipation of stricter regulations by the IMO, such as the introduction of the CII in 2023.
Source: OECD calculations based on data from World Fleet Register, Clarksons Research, https://www.clarksons.net/wfr/fleet (2024).
China has undertaken the most retrofits in hull modifications (21 out of 51 total), wind energy (8 retrofits out of 23), and solar energy (3 retrofits out of 4). Other countries actively involved in EST retrofits include European economies such as the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Türkiye, Germany, Italy and Finland. Outside Europe, Singapore, Japan, Korea and the United Arab Emirates have also undertaken EST retrofits. For CCS retrofits, the Netherlands has completed the most, followed by Spain (Figure 3.5).
Source: OECD calculations based on data from World Fleet Register, Clarksons Research, https://www.clarksons.net/wfr/fleet (2024).
Containerships are the primary vessel type undergoing both hull EST retrofits and CCS retrofits. Hull EST retrofits are also notably prevalent in bulk carriers, ferries, LNG carriers and cruise ships, representing a significant portion of the total retrofits. In the case of CCS retrofits, bulk carriers, LNG carriers, chemical carriers, and LPG carriers are the vessel types where these retrofits are commonly found. Solar EST retrofits are implemented in bulk carriers and pure car carriers, whereas wind EST retrofits are most frequently applied to bulk carriers and Ro-Ro vessels, with presence also in general cargo, multi-purpose, and heavy lift vessels (Figure 3.6).
Source: OECD calculations based on data from World Fleet Register, Clarksons Research, https://www.clarksons.net/wfr/fleet (2024).
Propeller EST retrofits
Propeller EST retrofits are analysed separately due to their more frequent occurrence compared to other EST retrofits, with a total of 1,596 retrofits observed during the period analysed (2009 to 2023).
Notable peaks in propeller retrofits occurred in 2015, with 233 retrofits, and in 2022, with 254 retrofits. This may be attributed to ship owners reacting to elevated fuel costs in 2008, 2011-2014 and again in 2022, as well as the introduction of IMO regulation on ship energy efficiency in 2016 and 2023. Older ships were designed for higher engine loads, not maximum fuel efficiency at reduced speeds. Given the surge in fuel prices, the inefficiency of propulsion systems operating under ‘part load’ conditions could risk undermining competitiveness, motivating propulsion EST retrofits (Wärtsilä, 2021[6]). China leads in the total number of these retrofits, with Türkiye, Singapore and Middle Eastern countries like the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman also showing significant activity. In Europe, Romania, Poland and Portugal are particularly active in undertaking propeller retrofits (Figure 3.7).
Source: OECD calculations based on data from World Fleet Register, Clarksons Research, https://www.clarksons.net/wfr/fleet (2024).
Propeller retrofits are most undertaken for large commercial vessels, like bulk carriers, container ships, tankers and chemical carriers.
Source: OECD calculations based on data from World Fleet Register, Clarksons Research, https://www.clarksons.net/wfr/fleet (2024).
Vessel age and length of retrofits
Table 3.2 indicates that the median age of vessels undergoing EST retrofits as well as alternative fuel conversions (which were analysed separately in Chapter 2).
Vessels are retrofitted for EST and alternative fuels at a similar age, hovering around the 10-year mark. This suggests that the ships being retrofitted are relatively young within their operational lifecycle. Such a trend may imply that it is commercially advantageous to retrofit these vessels rather than opting for demolition and acquiring new ships. It could reflect shipowners’ strategic decision to invest in existing assets, enhancing their performance and extending their serviceability in response to evolving regulatory and market conditions.
In terms of the duration of these retrofits, fuel conversions are notably more time-consuming, with a median length of 67 days. This is significantly longer than the 22 days median duration for both EST and onboard CCS retrofits. The considerable additional time required for fuel conversions likely reflects the complexity and scale of the work involved in such retrofits and could substantiate potential bottlenecks in the future (Lloyd's Register, 2023[7]).
Note: The average retrofit duration varies by vessel type and fuel conversion complexity. For some fuel conversions, fewer than three data points are available, limiting the robustness of the estimates.
Source: OECD calculations based on data from World Fleet Register, Clarksons Research, https://www.clarksons.net/wfr/fleet (2024).
Over the past decade, a set of digital technologies commonly referred to as Industry 4.0 has begun to reshape businesses across sectors. Despite the various definitions and terminology, the primary goal of these technologies is broadly acknowledged as the collection, exchange and processing of data to support autonomous decision-making systems. Notable examples of Industry 4.0 technologies include the Internet of Things (IoT), Big Data analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, cloud computing (CC), blockchain technology and additive manufacturing (Agarwala, Chhabra and Agarwala, 2021[8])
Digitalisation in the shipping industry encompasses the utilisation of data analytics for a diverse set of operations: from determining the best routes and sailing conditions and digital monitoring of ship health to the strategic scheduling of ship maintenance to help reduce machinery downtime and prevent ships from being out of service. Consequently, ‘smart’ vessels are expected to enhance operational efficiency and substantially reduce their GHG emissions (Bureau Veritas, 2022[9]). Digitalisation also has great potential to optimise ship construction to better meet environmental regulation and customer demand. While the required technologies are often less mature and commercially viable in the maritime industry compared to other sectors, stakeholders see opportunities in adapting advanced digital technologies from other industries, potentially enhancing competitiveness and supporting decarbonisation efforts in the maritime sector (Sullivan et al., 2020[10]).
Table 3.3 provides an overview of digital maritime technologies and their potential contributions to enhancing a vessel’s operational efficiency and reducing GHG emissions across a ship’s life cycle.
3.2.1. Digitalisation in shipping operations
Digital technologies have the potential to collectively enhance the operational efficiency of ships, optimise routing, and reduce fuel consumption. The volume of data associated with real-time tracking technologies has grown significantly in recent years, with nearly two-thirds of ships now employing digital equipment to enhance efficiency, improve commercial performance, navigation and support maritime security (Mirović, Miličević and Obradović, 2018[13]). Notably, the integration of real-time tracking and automation tools has improved port logistics, with Just-in-Time (JIT) arrivals demonstrating fuel savings of up to 14.2% in the container sector (International Maritime Organization, 2022[14]). Collaborations between ports, such as the Green and Digital Corridor initiative between Singapore and Rotterdam, further highlight the role of digitalisation in supporting decarbonisation efforts. As part of the Corridor, Singapore and Rotterdam have successfully trialled port-to-port data exchange, enabling vessel arrival and departure coordination, and are collaborating with industry partners on a proof of concept for monitoring, reporting, and verifying (MRV) GHG emissions along the route, aligned with global and regional standards (MPA Singapore, 2024[15]). Digitalisation enhances transparency on vessel performance, providing data that can measure the impact of energy-saving measures and helping to design and operate the next generation of energy-efficient ships. Digital verification tools can further help create an infrastructure of trust in emissions reporting, supporting industry-wide collaboration and facilitating new contractual arrangements incentivising energy-efficiency measures (Wang et al., 2016[16]).
Emerging technologies, such as digital twins allow the creation of virtual replicas of ships, enabling real-time monitoring of ship machinery and conditions. By predicting maintenance needs, digital twins reduce downtime and improve fuel efficiency, contributing to GHG emissions reduction. Studies indicate that leveraging AI and Big Data analytics for ship routing and operation can reduce fuel consumption by up to 10%, depending on factors like weather conditions and route optimisation (DNV, 2024[3]).
3.2.2. Digitalisation in shipbuilding
Shipbuilding, a traditionally labour-intensive and slow-moving industry, has also begun to adopt digitalisation to meet growing environmental regulations and customer demands. The integration of digital technologies, such as computer-aided design (CAD), computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), additive manufacturing (3D printing), and advanced robotics, allows for 3D modelling and visualisation, enabling shipbuilders to collaborate more effectively on complex ship structures and improve precision. This in turn can help streamline the construction process, reduce material waste, and improve overall efficiency (Diaz et al., 2023[17]). A case study of Korean shipyards found that automation and digital tools led to a 68% production automation rate, significantly reducing ship delivery times (LR, 2022[18]). Advanced robotics, which perform tasks such as welding and assembly, can also help to alleviate labour shortages in the shipbuilding industry while reducing costs (Lloyd's List, 2024[19]).
3.2.3. Remaining challenges to wider adoption
Despite the potential benefits of digitalisation in maritime operations and shipbuilding, there are significant challenges hindering its wider adoption.
One of the main barriers is the high initial cost of implementing digital technologies. For instance, as of 2024, the cost of industrial robotic systems used in ship construction ranges from USD 50,000 to USD 150,000, which can be prohibitive for adoption in small and medium-sized shipbuilders. In addition to initial investment costs, ongoing expenses for maintenance and integration also pose challenges, particularly for smaller enterprises (DNV, 2024[3]).
Cybersecurity concerns also increase as digitalisation becomes more widespread. The use of data-sharing platforms and cloud-based systems exposes ships and shipyards to potential cyberattacks, underscoring the need for robust cybersecurity measures and better industry-wide coordination to protect critical infrastructure. Furthermore, there is a significant skills gap in the maritime workforce, as many workers lack the technical expertise to operate and maintain digital tools. Addressing this skills gap will require considerable investment in training programmes and increased collaboration among industry stakeholders (LR, 2022[18]).
To meet global emissions reduction targets and mitigate climate change, the maritime industry must transition to low- and (near) zero-emission alternatives. Continued innovation plays an important role in driving down costs, overcoming technical challenges, and ensuring that new technologies can be scaled effectively to meet the global shipping industry’s net-zero goals. The development and uptake of low/zero-emission technologies in maritime transport is expected to provide significant opportunities for shipbuilders and marine equipment suppliers to develop technologies that meet the demands of this rapidly evolving industry. The following section provides an overview of key trends in low/zero-emission patenting activity in maritime technologies, focusing on key innovation trends based on patent counts in climate change mitigation technologies. The analysis encompasses design advancements, energy-saving mechanisms and alternative fuel onboard technologies, with a specific focus on their impact on zero and low-carbon shipping.
3.3.1. Methodology
To analyse innovation trends, patents are used as a proxy for innovation activity. Patent data is extracted from the European Patent Office (EPO) Worldwide Patent Statistical Database (PATSTAT). The data is derived from patent applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) as of September 2024, with a reference period spanning from 2008 up to 2022 (OECD, 2024[20]). The PCT provides a legal infrastructure for a worldwide system of patent classification. Administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WPO), the PCT allows inventors to seek patent protection for an innovation in numerous countries simultaneously, rather than having to file multiple national or regional patent applications (WPO, 2022[21]).
Low/zero-emission patents are identified via the Y02-tag, which EPO defines as “Technologies or applications for mitigation or adaptation to climate change”. Specific Y02 patent codes (Y02T70/00) pertaining to “Climate change mitigation technologies related to transportation: maritime or waterways transport” are used to extract relevant patents (European Patent Office, 2024[22]). These patent codes can be further classified into subcategories that provide a granular view of innovations in maritime technology groups based on their areas of focus, thereby permitting a more detailed study of trends and patterns within the low/zero-emission maritime technology landscape (see Table 3.4).
Patent data is valuable for examining innovation trends as it is standardised, making it easy to compare across different economies and time periods. Nevertheless, it also faces some challenges in measurement stemming from the collection and structuring of data. Box 3.1. provides an overview of limitations to patent data that should be taken into consideration when analysing results and are pertinent to policy implications derived from the findings. A more detailed explanation of how to report, measure and analyse data on innovation can be found in the OECD/ Eurostat Oslo Manual (OECD/ Eurostat, 2018[23]).
Inventors from several countries
The increasing trend of collaborative inventions involving multiple inventors from different countries raises the issue of potential overcounting. To tackle this problem and ensure accurate counting of transnational inventions, “fractional patent counts” are employed. This method assigns a fraction of the patent to each participating country instead of a whole count, thereby preventing double counting.
Home advantage bias
When patent metrics are derived solely from the data of a single national patent office, there is an inherent home advantage bias. This means that local applicants are more likely to file a larger number of patents within their own country (or region) relative to the size of their inventive activities, compared to international applicants. Using patent data registered under the PCT can help reduce this bias by providing a unified international patent filing system.
Scope of patent systems
As patent systems evolve and corporate approaches towards safeguarding innovations shift, a rise in patent filings does not automatically indicate an increase in new inventions, it could also signify a broader adoption of intellectual property rights (IPRs), particularly patents, by companies.
Patent quality
Another limitation to utilising patent data is that it cannot provide information on the “importance” of patents/ inventions. OECD research suggests including patent citations (for instance, the frequency with which a patent is cited in subsequent filings) to better evaluate patents by their “quality”.
Source: (OECD/ Eurostat, 2018[23])
3.3.2. Discussion of findings
To gain insights into the main trends in innovation in low/zero-emission maritime technologies, it is useful to examine the shifts in patenting activity throughout the analysed period. Figure 3.9 delineates the trajectory of yearly low/zero-emission patents in maritime technologies from 2008 to 2022.
Both total patenting activity in low/zero-emission maritime technologies and its relative share has decreased. Examining the total number of Y02-tagged maritime technology patents, an increase is evident from 2008, peaking in 2015 with 114 patents globally. Patent counts start to tamper off after 2015, culminating in a notable reduction by 2022. A similar trend is visible for the relative share of Y02-tagged patents in total maritime technology patents, which peaks in 2010 and 2015. This metric helps determine not only if low/zero-emission inventions have risen, but also if they have grown in relation to wider patenting activity in the maritime sector. After 2020, the share of low/zero-emission inventions shows a clear downward trajectory, reaching the lowest level over the studied period of around 7% by 2022. Despite the global increase in policies targeting low/zero-emission technology developments for the transition to net zero, Figure 3.9 shows that low/zero-emission maritime innovation activity in 2022 does not substantially surpass its level from over 15 years prior.
The peak in the early 2010s for low/zero-emission innovations and the subsequent drop in “climate change mitigation” inventions mirror broader technological trends (OECD, 2023[24]). OECD analysis shows that after a surge from 2004 to 2011, low/zero-emission technologies’ share of global patents begins to decrease around 2012, falling from 12.6% in 2011 to 9% in 2020. The period of relatively high share of low/zero-emission patents might be a result of surging fossil fuel prices in the late 2000s, indirectly putting an additional price on carbon, rather than an increased emphasis on environmental concerns (OECD, 2023[25]).
Source: OECD, STI Micro-data Lab: Intellectual Property Database, http://oe.cd/ipstats, September 2024.
Patenting activity in climate change mitigation technologies related to maritime or waterways transport shows significant differences across shipbuilding economies. Figure 3.10 compares total low/zero-emission patent applications for a selection of economies taken from the total sample, which have exhibited consistently high levels of innovation over the studied period. Amongst high-level innovators, Europe (including EU27, Norway and UK) and Japan consistently maintain prominence as leading innovators for low/zero-emission maritime technologies. Japan’s innovation activity shows a notable peak in 2015, registering 35 low/zero-emission patents out of a world total of 114 patents. Europe reaches its peak in 2019 with 48 low/zero-emission patents, including 40 patents by EU27.
The figure also includes data on China, the world’s current largest shipbuilding economy. China has experienced a steadfast and considerable increase in its innovation activity trajectory. By 2021, its innovation activity in low/zero-emission maritime technology patents surpassed that of Japan, Korea and the United States and equalled the activity of all European shipbuilding countries, with 12 patents total. This ascent underscores China’s increased focus and strategic direction towards “green” maritime solutions. It is primarily linked to a rapid increase in patents on measures concerning design or construction of watercraft hulls (patent code: Y02T70/10).
Note: Europe is EU27 as well as Norway and United Kingdom (reflecting SEA Europe members).
Source: OECD, STI Micro-data Lab: Intellectual Property Database, http://oe.cd/ipstats, September 2024.
A significant share of clean technology development is localised within a select group of economies, revealing a marked specialisation across these countries (and regions) in their areas of focus and technical expertise. Looking to the EU27, Japan and China, the leading innovators in low/zero-emission maritime technologies over the studied period, distinct patterns in their respective capacity for climate change mitigation technology development and prioritised technology clusters become apparent (Figure 3.11).
In Japan, low/zero-emission innovation activity is notably concentrated in the design or construction of watercraft hulls (patent code: Y02T70/10), with a total of 80 patents over the studied period, making up almost 20% of world-wide low-carbon patents in this technology field. Less carbon-intensive fuels (Y02T70/5218) and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to propulsion (Y02T70/50) also show high levels of patenting, with 42 and 32 patents respectively. Similar to Japan, China shows the highest innovation activity in measures concerning the design or construction of watercraft hulls, with a total of 44 patents.
EU member states—unlike most shipbuilding economies—show high levels of patenting activity in renewable or hybrid-electric solutions (Y02T70/5236). This category has consistently shown high innovation levels and can be linked to the use of hybrid solutions for vessel types predominantly produced in the EU27 (e.g., ferries). Design or construction of watercraft hulls (Y02T70/10) is another domain where the EU27 has demonstrated significant activity, with a total of 99 patents. In terms of measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions related to the propulsion system (Y02T70/50) and less carbon-intensive fuels (Y02T70/5218), patenting activity is relatively low over the studied period.
Source: OECD, STI Micro-data Lab: Intellectual Property Database, http://oe.cd/ipstats, September 2024.
References
[8] Agarwala, P., S. Chhabra and N. Agarwala (2021), “Using digitalisation to achieve decarbonisation in the shipping industry”, Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping, Vol. 5/4, pp. 161-174, https://doi.org/10.1080/25725084.2021.2009420.
[9] Bureau Veritas (2022), SMARTSHIPS - BRINGING SMART COLLABORATION TO SHIPPING, https://marine-offshore.bureauveritas.com/insight/our-publications/smartships.
[5] Clarksons Research (2024), Green Technology Tracker: October 2024, https://www.clarksons.net/wfr/News/Article/204451#!#default.
[4] Clarksons Research (2024), World Fleet Register, https://www.clarksons.net/wfr/#!/login/?returnPath=fleet.
[17] Diaz, R. et al. (2023), “Digital Transformation, Applications, and Vulnerabilities in Maritime and Shipbuilding Ecosystems”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.338.
[3] DNV (2024), Energy Transition Outlook 2024: Maritime Forecast to 2050: A deep dive into shipping’s decarbonization journey, https://www.dnv.com/maritime/publications/maritime-forecast/.
[22] European Patent Office (2024), Classification search: Climate change mitigation technologies related to transportation, https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/cpc-browser#!/CPC=Y02T.
[12] Ichimura, Y. et al. (2022), “Shipping in the era of digitalization: Mapping the future strategic plans”, Digital Business, Vol. 2/1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.digbus.2022.100022.
[2] IMO Green Voyage 2050 (2024), Technology Groups, https://greenvoyage2050.imo.org/technology-groups/.
[14] International Maritime Organization (2022), Just In Time Arrival: Emissions reduction potential in global container shipping, https://greenvoyage2050.imo.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/JIT-Container-Study.pdf.
[19] Lloyd’s List (2024), South Korea plans autonomous AI shipbuilding to cut delivery time, https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1149991/South-Korea-plans-autonomous-AI-shipbuilding-to-cut-delivery-time.
[7] Lloyd’s Register (2023), Engine Retrofit Report: Applying alternative fuels to existing ships, https://www.lr.org/en/knowledge/research-reports/applying-alternative-fuels-to-existing-ships/.
[11] Lloyd’s Register; Qinetiq; University of Strathclyde (2015), Global Marine Trends 2030, https://www.lr.org/en/insights/global-marine-trends-2030/global-marine-technology-trends-2030/.
[18] LR (2022), Digitalisation driving change in shipbuilding, https://www.lr.org/en/knowledge/insights-articles/digitalisation-driving-change-in-shipbuilding/.
[1] Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping (2022), The role for investors in decarbonizing global shipping, https://cms.zerocarbonshipping.com/media/uploads/documents/Maritime-Makeover_2022-11-01-150354_kyre.pdf.
[13] Mirović, M., M. Miličević and I. Obradović (2018), “Big data in the maritime industry”, Naše More: International Journal Maritime Science and Technology, Vol. 65/1, pp. 56-62, https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/287936.
[15] MPA Singapore (2024), Singapore-Rotterdam Green & Digital Shipping Corridor accelerates digitalisation and decarbonisation with new global value-chain partners, https://www.mpa.gov.sg/media-centre/details/singapore-rotterdam-green---digital-shipping-corridor-accelerates-digitalisation-and-decarbonisation-with-new-global-value-chain-partners.
[20] OECD (2024), STI Micro-data Lab: Intellectural Property Database, http://oe.cd/ipstats (accessed on September 2024).
[25] OECD (2023), Driving low-carbon innovations for climate neutrality, https://www.oecd.org/publications/driving-low-carbon-innovations-for-climate-neutrality-8e6ae16b-en.htm.
[24] OECD (2023), OECD work in support of industrial decarbonisation, https://issuu.com/oecd.publishing/docs/oecd_industrial_decarbonisation_2023.
[23] OECD/ Eurostat (2018), Oslo Manual 2018 - Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/science/oslo-manual-2018-9789264304604-en.htm.
[10] Sullivan, B. et al. (2020), “Maritime 4.0 –Opportunities in Digitalization and Advanced Manufacturing for Vessel Development”, Procedia Manufacturing Volume, Vol. 42, pp. 246-253, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.078.
[16] Wang, K. et al. (2016), “Real-time optimization of ship energy efficiency based on the prediction technology of working condition”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.03.014.
[6] Wärtsilä (2021), Flexibility is the key requirement for future propulsion systems, https://www.wartsila.com/insights/article/flexibility-is-the-key-requirement-for-future-propulsion-systems.
[21] WPO (2022), PCT FAQs, https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/faqs.html.