Dr. Roberta Cenni, Head of Biofuels at the Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping (MMMCZCS), emphasizes the significant role that biofuels can play in the maritime industry’s journey toward decarbonization.
Biofuels can mitigate some of the existing uncertainties surrounding alternative fuels, making them a viable option for the sector’s future. Several types of biofuels are already being produced commercially on a large scale and are advancing as a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. Dr. Cenni provides an overview of biofuel production, stressing the need for a clear global regulatory framework, along with appropriate incentives, to guide the shipping industry.
SAFETY4SEA: How do you see biofuels contributing to overcoming the industry’s decarbonization challenges?
Dr. Roberta Cenni: Several types of biofuels are already produced commercially in large amounts today and are maturing as an alternative to fossil fuels These more commercially mature biofuels include bio-diesel (FAME types), which is already established as a drop-in fuel in internal combustion engines for road and maritime transport. Bio-methane has been used for decades as an alternative or a supplement to natural gas in national natural gas networks, to fuel cars and trucks (in compressed form) – and lately, in liquefied form, also as a drop-in replacement for LNG in ships. Thanks to the exploratory work conducted for road transport and power generation, there is significant understanding on the life-cycle impact of these fuels on the environment, and methodologies to calculate their emissions intensity are established. Use of bio-diesel and bio-methane as bunker is already backed up by knowledge, infrastructure, and clear approval guidelines for these fuels by the IMO and in the form of ISO standards. What is less clear is the availability: these fuels and their feedstocks may also be used by other industries that are subject to other constraints and may also have other options to decarbonize. At the MMMCZCS, we are of the view that the global supply of sustainable alternative fuels, including biofuels, will remain constrained in terms of both physical availability and cost for some time.
S4S: What are the current technological and economic barriers to scaling up the production of biofuels?
Dr. R.C.: ‘Biofuels’ is a broad category of fuels, and each type will face different technological and economic barriers. For bio-diesel and bio-methane, which are already becoming available to shipping, there are no technological barriers. One specific production method for bio-methanol from biogas has also been commercially proven, while other production methods still await such proof. Some other promising options, such as bio-oils, are less technologically mature and require more research before they can become available as shipping fuels. The main economic barrier to the production of the more mature biofuels is shipping operators’ reluctance to sign long-term off-take agreements with fuel producers.
Biofuels producers are willing to establish new production lines but need off-take agreements in the range of 10 years to finance investments.
It takes 3-8 years to establish such production lines, so if commitments to production are not taken soon, shipping operators may not be able to acquire enough biofuel to comply with maritime regulations or their clients’ voluntary targets (Scope 3 emissions).
S4S: What are your recommendations for the sustainable production of biofuels?
Dr. R.C.: Our recommendation is to consider such off-take agreements for sustainable biofuels. By this, we mean biofuels that are produced from sustainable biomass, which has been cultivated and/or sourced from a system of agricultural practices aimed at maintaining the relevant ecological, economic, and social functions of the land used to cultivate the biomass now and in the future. Indeed, when thinking about barriers to biofuels, it is also important to consider sustainability barriers. One important area here is the choice of feedstock to produce the biofuel. For example, bio-diesel can be produced either from vegetable oils or from waste fats, oils, and greases (e.g., used cooking oil). The first option presents significant environmental risks. Huge areas of natural forest have previously been burned to establish vegetable oil production for the transport industry, and studies indicate that biodiesel produced from vegetable oils actually has a higher emissions intensity than fossil fuels for decades, due to the initial massive impact of burning the forest to prepare the soil for new plantations. Similar considerations apply for other biofuels produced from energy crops.
A more sustainable option is to produce biofuels from waste feedstocks.
Unfortunately, the amounts of waste fats, oils, and greases available for bio-diesel production are not high and are often valorized in other industries. On the other hand, many different waste types can be fed into an anaerobic digestor, producing biogas as a precursor to bio-methane, bio-methanol and other fuels. These include waste types, such as sanitation waste, that often cause other environmental and social problems if not treated. In addition to sustainable feedstocks, sustainable biofuels should also minimize environmental impact in their processing and transport.
S4S: What future trends or developments do you foresee in the field of biogas as a source of biofuels for shipping?
Dr. R.C.: Biogas-based biofuels, such as liquified bio-methane and bio-methanol, can have strongly negative emissions intensity – meaning that the more these biofuels are produced and consumed, the more greenhouse gas emissions can be avoided. Biofuels with a very low emissions intensity may be very beneficial for operators in shipping, because they can enable the same decarbonization target with less biofuel. Access to these biofuels may be leveraged in cheaper procurement of fuels, in lower demand for new or revamped ships to enable operation with alternative fuels, or even in a new line of business in regulatory frameworks that allow pooling and/or trade of overcompliance. However, this strongly negative emissions intensity requires optimization of the biofuel production process in several areas with the following ways: Selection of the feedstock ; Avoiding methane leaks; Use of utilities with low emissions intensity across the supply chain and; Storing any residual CO2 from the production process, instead of releasing this CO2 into the atmosphere. The biogas industry is already looking into some of the options listed above to ensure maximum value for their product. I am sure we will see a lot more of that.
S4S: Are there specific regions or countries that are leading in the production and adoption of biogas-derived biofuels for shipping?
Dr. R.C.: We primarily see interest and activities in Europe. These are triggered by a favorable regulation (the FuelEU Maritime), which allows pooling and trading of overcompliance and adopts the LCA methodology established by the EU Renewable Energy Directive. This directive allows accounting of strong emissions credits with processes that improve waste management practices. I suspect that most of the global shipping sector will wait for the finalization of the details in the IMO decarbonization strategy, including the LCA methodology, to start acting.
S4S: How can regulatory frameworks and policies support the transition to biofuels in the shipping industry?
Dr. R.C.:
At the MMMCZCS, we think it is important to have a clear global regulatory framework with the correct incentives for the shipping industry to send the right purchase signal to the fuel producers.
In the first instance, it is important that the IMO agree on very ambitious Goal-based Fuel Standards (GFS) and GHG pricing mechanisms. These should be set in such a way as to drive the business cases for biofuels with very low emissions intensity. The EU, with the EU ETS and FuelEU, can serve as an example of how these policies can drive business cases for biofuels. We see biofuels as an attractive ‘go-to’ business compliance option in the early years of the EU ETS and FuelEU. If the IMO can set up a framework that is as or more ambitious than the EU, then we are likely to see the promotion of highly sustainable and scalable fuels. While ambition is important, the details also matter. On this point, it is crucial for the IMO to set up its sustainability criteria in a way that promotes truly sustainable fuels. The IMO has already made a high-level definition of these criteria, but they remain to be further detailed. The criteria will potentially rule in or out some of the feedstocks that can be used to make biofuels – here we can allude to the use of purpose-grown energy crops as opposed to waste, as previously touched on.
S4S: What is your wish list for the industry and/or regulators and all parties involved for addressing the issue of decarbonization?
Dr. R.C.: There is also a need to discuss default emissions intensity values for marine fuels. What I see is that default values do not discourage the worst offenders and do not encourage the best performers. Eventually, the result is not the best for the fight against climate change and not the cheapest for our operators. I understand that, due to the difficulty of negotiating such emissions reduction schemes at the IMO level, in the short term we may need to settle on default values for emissions intensity. However, I hope that in future reassessments, this position is reconsidered. In essence, we can hope for a high regulatory ambition level, giving a long-term visibility to industry coming from the GFS and the GHG pricing measures, and great attention to detail. If not handled correctly, the details of the regulations may lead to alternative fuels with poor environmental performance being promoted above the truly sustainable fuels. At the MMMCZCS, we will continue generating information and data that may support such decision-making.
S4S: How can industry stakeholders best collaborate in support of sustainable development and the successful widespread adoption of biofuels?
Dr. R.C.: There are already some good examples of collaboration in the shipping industry – for example, around information sharing related to safety at sea, as well as the longstanding tradition of operational collaboration in shipping pools or joint ventures to aggregate transport capacity – which even takes place between competitors within the same shipping segment. As far as collaboration to support the adoption of biofuels in shipping, I can see various areas: Establishing alliances to pool demand from a specific biofuel manufacturing asset; Sharing knowledge and test results on new fuels and; Joint funding of voluntary initiatives that promote the sustainability of biofuels. Acknowledging the importance of these items, the MMMCZCS has action points on all of them with projects that are either already underway or just about to be started.
S4S: If you could change one thing across the industry from your perspective, what would it be and why?
Dr. R.C.: If I could change something across the industry, I would change the attitude towards methane emissions. These emissions may appear wherever methane is involved in a biofuels value chain – for example, during anaerobic digestion, transport of bio-methane, or onboard combustion of methane. In our research, we have found that methane losses just modestly above average can cause biofuels from biogas to emit more CO2-equivalent than the fossil reference fuel. We also have the impression that many operators, both on the fuel production and consumption sides, still seem to have too little knowledge and too much complacency about methane emissions. My message to the industry is that these emissions can be mitigated, and the time to get serious about this mitigation is long overdue.
S4S: What is your key message to industry stakeholders to foster a more sustainable future for shipping?
Dr. R.C.: Invest in knowledge and take ownership of the decarbonization journey of your company. There are a lot of opportunities in the transition, but also pitfalls. Those who lack knowledge are more likely to fall in the pit and commit to biofuels with dubious emissions reduction potential. A key part of our mission at the MMMCZCS is to act as a source of valuable knowledge about the transition that can help stakeholders across the industry to make the best possible decisions to support sustainable decarbonization.
The views presented are only those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of SAFETY4SEA and are for information sharing and discussion purposes only.
