# Costs and Benefits of Autonomous Shipping--A Literature Review
## 3 Results
### Basic Costs of Operating Autonomous Slips
#### 3.2.1 Bulk Carrier  
The basic motivation for the MUNIN project was to contribute to the triple bottom line--economic, social, and environmental issues and evaluate the project performance with the use of those three factors. The major challenges of the maritime industry according to [PERSON] are: keeping expenses at the possibly low level, reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by shipping, and removing crew from trivial ship operations [34]. The operation of the autonomous bulker with regard to MUNIN assumes fitting the ship with an Autonomous Navigation System, while the ship is controlled by the Advanced Sensor Module and supervision over the course of the ship's route is provided by the Shore Control Centre [21]. In a situation where Autonomous Ship Control is unable to cope with the difficulties encountered, the ship is switched to a remote control mode and the operator in the Shore Control Centre takes control over the ship [43]. First, the MUNIN concept assumed participation of the crew when departing and entering the port. However, the cost-benefit analysis alone indicated that the crew can feasibly be replaced by the use of a remote control for operations in port. Clearly, the question on safety of such a solution remains open [44]. The lack of crew on board will affect the cost structure. Consequently, the need for ship facilities intended for seafarers will not be necessary. Moreover, the cost for equipment, annual expenses on rent, and operational costs of the autonomous bulker are given as rough estimates. While the investment cost of developing Shore Control Centre ranges from 1 to 2.1 mUSD, and the annual operating cost yields 0.87 mUSD [21, 42]. The division of costs into operating, voyage, and capital of autonomous ship including reduction and increases with regard to implementing autonomous bulk carrier are presented in Tables 5 and 6, as per [21]. Table 5 shows the estimates of costs of operating the unmanned bulker, as per [21]. These are compared to a reference vessel--conventional bulker (length--230 m, breadth--32 m, design draught--14.5 m, service speed--15.5 kn, main engine--10.230 kW). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **DNV GL ReVolt (2013)** & **YARA Birkeland (2017)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Autonomous Short Sea** \\ **Container Ship** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Length & 60 m & 80 m & 119.80 m \\ Width & - & 15 m & 20.0 m \\ Capacity & 100 TEU 1 & 120 TEU 1 & 600 TEU 1 \\ Service speed & 6 knots & Eco speed: 6–7 knots, max: 13 knots & 16 knots \\ Range & 100 nautical miles & - & 1937 nautical miles \\ Ship power supply & Battery (capacity of 3 MWh) & Battery (capacity of 7 MWh) & Generators \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* TEU—twenty-foot equivalent unit.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Main dimensions of ReVolt, Yara Birkeland, and autonomous short sea container ship, based on [17, 21, 42]. Therein, the largest part of total costs (53%) relates to voyage costs (mainly fuel consumption), followed by the capital costs (26%), understood as autonomous technology and redundancies, while the operating costs accounts for 20% of the total cost. The authors claim the voyage costs are governed by two major factors: fuel consumption (up to 77%) and port-call (20%). The former can be reduced in case of the autonomous ship by approximately 6% owing to the reduced light ship weight, air resistance, and absence of the hotel system [45]. The required propulsion power could be reduced by approximately 1% if deckhouses were removed. Additionally, changes in light ship weight, caused mainly by the absence of extensive accommodation facilities, contribute to the reduced fuel consumption. The voyage costs also include boarding of a berthing party, which is estimated to be 20% higher than in case of a conventional vessel.