Author: Peter Bos, Leading Professional Maritime solutions for renewable energies
If the global fleet was a country, it would be the sixth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, contributing about 3% of global CO2 emissions. Despite well-intentioned goals set by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and more recently by the EU, the shipping industry is still undecided when it comes to making the substantial investments needed to decarbonise shipping. It finds itself constrained by a complex Catch-22 situation. How did this arise? More importantly, how can it be resolved?
Earlier this year, the EU set a goal for the maritime industry to reduce its CO2 emissions by 2% by 2025 and 80% by 2050. Furthermore, from 2024, vessels will be taxed on their carbon emissions. Earlier, the IMO set a strategic target to reduce CO2 emissions across international shipping by at least 40% by 2030 and to 70% by 2050, compared to 2008.
These are noble goals which are much needed. But still absent is a firm roadmap to achieve them.
There exist many alternative fuels competing to replace diesel. Each have their pros and cons. Today shipping companies and port operators have the unenviable task of determining which fuels and facilities they will need to invest in for the future.
Complicating matters is the fact there’s not enough renewable energy available to make the clean fuels of tomorrow. The world is not generating enough. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, less than 0.2 Mt of renewable methanol is produced annually, mostly as bio-methanol. The figures fall woefully short.
Also, renewable energy tends not to be located where maritime customers need it most, at major ports like Singapore, Rotterdam, Shanghai, and Los Angeles.
When it comes to identifying the maritime fuel of tomorrow there is no one cap that fits all. Methanol and LNG are touted as transitional fuels because their emissions are lower compared to diesel. But given the climate crisis, shouldn’t we set the bar higher and aim for zero emissions? I think we must.
It’s true that there’s no single silver bullet to meet the needs of all maritime vessels. Hydrogen, for example, made from renewable electricity through electrolysis, emits no CO2. Yet it takes six to ten times the storage space of diesel and when liquefied must be stored at very low temperatures. The extra storage cost means that in the short- and medium-term, hydrogen is an uneconomic fuel for long-distance vessels. Where it is viable, is for coastal vessels that can secure a local fuel supply. The same also applies to short-journey battery-powered vessels.
Ammonia looks promising. On the one hand, it can be made from green electricity, is cheaper than using batteries, and easier to store than hydrogen. In the other hand, its corrosive nature and toxicity raises environmental and safety concerns – not least in ports with bunkering operations close to residential areas.
Peter Bos is a leading maritime solutions expert for renewable energy at Haskoning. With 25 years of experience, he has an impressive track record in maritime projects at all stages of design and execution. Peter’s extensive knowledge makes him a trusted advisor to several standards committees, including NEN and ISO. He has an MSc. in Civil Engineering from Delft University of Technology.