The Union of Greek Shipowners (UGS) issued a Report on technical aspects related to the decarbonisation of the shipping sector.
This report supplements the UGS Survey of Alternative Fuels -Technologies for Shipping and presents a technical perspective on the potential alternative marine fuels and vessel technologies that need to be developed to enable the decarbonisation of the maritime transport sector.
Greece with Prime Minister Mr. Kyriakos Mitsotakis and his pertinent call for an EU Research Centre for Alternative Marine Fuels and Technologies, has taken an initiative for the effective decarbonisation of our industry and for real Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reductions
the President of the UGS, Mr. Theodore Veniamis.
LNG
Lack of LNG bunkering infrastructure for LNG-fuelled ships in major ports of call worldwide is a market-barrier to further widespread use of LNG as marine fuel.
Using LNG as fuel is more viable for tankers than for bulk carriers and general dry cargo ships. For container vessels, LNG could be viable on certain routes. The energy density of LNG is 40-45% lower than that of Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO). Hence, there is a high Capital Expenditures (CAPEX) cost of fuel storage and containment systems in non-LNG carriers.
Biofuels
Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO), a promising candidate as a “drop-in fuel” in most cases can be distributed using the existing Marine Gas Oil (MGO) and HFO distribution systems, although modifications are sometimes required. Using existing distribution systems for the type of biofuel classed as Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) is more challenging
said the UGS.
However, second generation biofuels such as HVO do not compete with food crops and are produced from lignocellulosic biomass, such as corn stalks or from food residues.
A large variety of processes exist for the production of conventional (first-generation) and advanced (second and third generation) biofuels, involving a variety of feedstocks and conversions. Another 2nd generation biofuel-used cooking oil (UCOME oil) produced from waste sources is being used in pilot projects for shipping.
There is a clear gap between the cost of biofuels and fossil fuels, both for aviation and marine applications. In the first instance, technology evolution will be needed to bring costs down and derisking investments will be crucial to deploy these technologies
It will also be important to evolve towards bio refinery approaches, delivering a range of outputs. In that sense, marine biofuels and bio jet fuels are complementary as they are at different ends of the fuel spectrum (high vis-à-vis low specifications).
Currently, however, there are no marine biofuel production pathways approved for blending with fossil fuels nor GHG factor default values established for biofuels destined for marine applications. For calculating the well-to-tank emissions for biofuels, the GHG factor default values related to cultivation, processing, transport and distribution will need to be taken into consideration
Ammonia
Availability in adequate quantities and at viable cost, development of suitable marine engines and of new bunkering infrastructure worldwide, lack of predictability of the regulatory framework and safety issues related to the exposure of crew to toxic ammonia vapours during storage and handling need to be addressed.
Methanol
Notwithstanding the absence of bunkering infrastructure and the lack of information regarding the future cost of carbon-neutral methanol, dual-fuel methanol engine and fuel-supply systems are an option being examined primarily as a future marine fuel for a certain segment of short sea shipping with a very limited number of vessels running on methanol globally.
Methanol can be a stable and safe hydrogen carrier since it is the simplest alcohol with the lowest carbon content and highest hydrogen content of any other liquid fuel
On the other hand, safety concerns, lower energy density and increased costs of the fuel storage system continue to make this fuel less suitable for the oceangoing bulk fleet.
Hydrogen
The low volumetric energy density of liquefied hydrogen (LH) and the high cost of the fuel storage system make the use of LH in deep-sea shipping very difficult. The situation is different for LH in short-sea shipping on fixed routes covering limited distances with frequent port calls, which due to their relatively low energy demand, are more likely candidates.
On safety considerations, ships burning synthetic fuels (ammonia, methanol and hydrogen) will require specially trained crews.
Fuel cells
In the future, a ship running on fuel cell technology will not necessarily require an internal combustion engine. Recognizing that fuel cell technology for ships is still in its infancy, making predictions on the future development of fuel cells is challenging.
The technology is not mature enough and it cannot provide a solution for large ocean-going ships in the foreseeable future. In addition, a significant cost reduction and size up-scaling is needed for fuel cells to become commercially viable. Specialised crew will also be required.
Electrofuels
Electrofuels based on “green” hydrogen – from water electrolysis using renewable electricity – can be synthesized with nitrogen or non-fossil carbon dioxide. No information on the cost of these electrofuels as “drop-in” fuels is readily available. Electrofuels, are at a very early stage of development.
It is important for policy and law makers to take this reality into account before regulating solely for shipowners. It is equally important to ensure that it is indeed the polluter who pays for the costs deriving from the relevant EU regulations, such as the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), as has rightly been pointed out by the Prime Minister of Greece
Mr. Veniamis concluded.
EXPLORE ON UGS’S ASPECTS OF SHIPPING DECARBONIZATION
