You are here
Home | Articles | Article: Fuelling the Future

Article: Fuelling the Future

The maritime industry is responsible for the transportation of more than 80% of traded goods worldwide. That being the case, its contribution to man-made carbon emissions – at 3% of the total – could be far worse. As we move towards a truly sustainable future though, it’s simply too much.

Which is why the IMO has committed to reducing shipping emissions to net zero by 2050. That’s a considerable challenge, especially if we consider some analysts’ predictions that we are currently in line for a 50% increase over the same period.

The industry is not sitting still. There are countless initiatives underway that aim at cutting emissions. These include harnessing the latest digital technologies and experimenting with different construction materials. Another area where considerable effort is being invested is alternative fuels.

There are various contenders – electric propulsion, biofuels, synthetic fuels, LNG, even nuclear. None of these is the Holy Grail; It’s unlikely any will be the ‘fuel of the future’. Instead, there is likely to be a range of options to match vessel type, route and cargo.

All the options under consideration have their advantages. It’s equally true, though, that they each present their own challenges, too.

Current technology

Battery power is perhaps one of the most advanced forms of alternative propulsion in the industry. It got off to a comfortable start, borrowing technology that had already proven its worth in land-based transportation.

Electric offers numerous benefits – amongst which are potentially low maintenance, reduced sound and vibrations and lower OPEX (depending on fluctuations in the energy markets). However, electric propulsion is not without drawbacks.

For one, it’s a low-density solution. Strings of batteries require considerably more space than a conventional fuel arrangement. Although, given that electric propulsion is only suitable for a very limited operational profile, this is perhaps not such a problem. 

With its need for regular docking and recharging, electric propulsion is really only suitable for vessels with a short, and very predictable sailing route. So, while it’s certainly an option for smaller ferries and harbour tugs, it’s not likely to become a solution for oceangoing vessels.

Clean & green or dirt not seen?

There is an another, less frequently discussed stumbling block for electric propulsion; it’s not as carbon friendly as it may at first appear. The most obvious potential snag is that cleanliness is dependent on the primary energy source. If the electricity utilised has renewable origins, the carbon output will be less than if drawing on coal power at source, for example.

There’s another factor; the development of an electric drivetrain requires resource extraction that is considerably more carbon intensive than a conventional train. Ultimately, while the electrical maritime operation, currently at least, may be able to meet its ambitious energy targets, it is all too often simply passing the emissions inland.

What comes first, supply or demand?

Suggesting itself as a solution on the carbon front is hydrogen. But again, almost all current hydrogen production requires fossil fuels. There is scope to change this, but it’s not going to come cheap, and investors are loathe to spend before they see market demand.

In any case, despite the zero-carbon output, hydrogen, when burned in a conventional ICE, emits considerable nitrogen oxide. As a result, its use is going to require application of either scrubber or fuel cell technology. Given that hydrogen already requires eight times more space than HFO for the same energy output, adding aftertreatment is going to eat into already compromised earning potential.

Cold, hard truth

Additionally, hydrogen storage is a challenge. Not only is it highly flammable, on-board storage requires cryogenic freezing capabilities below -205 degrees C.

On the face of it, ammonia seems like a good solution to both space and storage difficulties. Though it needs refrigeration, it does not require cryogenic temperatures. It also takes up just half the space of hydrogen, which, while no match for HFO, is a vast improvement.

The real benefit may lie in the fact that it can be stored on board as ammonia and converted back into hydrogen for use as a fuel. Somewhat less promising is ammonia’s toxicity; any spillage or seepage is likely to be seriously detrimental to both marine life and crew. The implications for ship design and crew training, in order to secure class approval, are considerable.

Down on the farm

Another challenge is that ammonia is already in demand in the agricultural industry as a fertiliser. Any rising demand is liable to result in increasing prices. There is potential to upscale, but the result is the same old story; a hike in the fossil fuels used in production landside.

Another option, biofuels, struggles with precisely the same issues. Highly in demand as animal food, the inland production process is very carbon intensive. And, with a price tag approximately 150% of HFO, biofuels are not an immediately attractive proposition for many operators.

And then there’s LNG. Long touted as a solution throughout a long period in a ‘chicken or egg’ conundrum, many vessels are being built ready for the LNG revolution. There are hopes of a synthetic version at some point; LNG is, after all, a fossil fuel. And though it does offer some carbon reduction, this is only around 25% of HFO emissions – not enough to meet the targets.

The nuclear option

It’s fast, incredibly efficient and very clean, but few are talking seriously about nuclear propulsion – at least not as a mainstream option. Quite aside from the fact that the very idea of it, reasonable or otherwise, invokes considerable concern amongst the voting public, the truth is, nuclear propulsion is just too expensive to have widespread appeal.

Net zero or true zero

It’s clear that there are considerable hurdles to overcome before maritime meets its goals in 2050. Although the OECD already demonstrated some years ago that the technology is available to make shipping carbon neutral well in advance of the deadline, it can currently only do so by passing the emissions problem further inland.

The challenge, then, is not one for the industry to solve in isolation. In order to effect the changes necessary for a genuinely clean energy transition, initiatives must involve the entire supply chain.

Facilitating this requires the sort of cross industrial network only enjoyed by governments. These bodies have a multi-faceted role in bring about positive environmental change. One that goes well beyond the passing of ever more stringent regulations and beyond even providing much needed financial incentives.

Governments must use their influence to bring stakeholders together from throughout the supply chain. There is no denying that well-funded projects are taking place in abundance, but if they are to be a success in genuinely reducing emissions – as opposed to just reducing emissions on the water – they have to expand beyond sectoral boundaries.

It’s a well-known adage that necessity is the mother of invention. Attesting to this are the great leaps forward in science and medicine during wartime. It’s worth noting though, that the vehicle for such innovation is almost always cooperation. In times of crisis, concerns of immediate financial return and competition are set aside in pursuit of the common good. Perhaps, as the pressure mounts in the coming years, such broad collaboration will be increasingly focused on development of sustainable technological solutions.

Fuel for thought

On the other hand, what if the fuel of the future was here already and had, in fact, been here all along. HFO might have an image problem akin to that of nuclear power, or even worse from some perspectives, but it does pose numerous benefits and not all of them anachronistic.

For starters, its relative cost-efficiency is well known. What’s more, HFO offers a globally widespread bunker network, enables use of established, proven technology and ensures operators of a return on investment on current assets.

True, its emission output is what got this whole discussion started in the first place, but as the above shows, most alternatives are not necessarily much better in the pollution stakes – at least, not yet. Maybe those scrubbers and other aftertreatment options can be best applied to reducing the impact of a cost-effective, high-density fuel that enables the continued profitability – and therefore sustainability – of our maritime industry.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

“Disclaimer: “Breakbulk News & Media BV (Breakbulk.News) assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of articles published. The information and or article contained in these articles is provided on an “as is” basis with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness…”

blank
blank
blank
blank
blank
Top