From the magazine – The presentation of the alternative fuels roadmap for sea shipping on October 24 is a good moment to reflect on the ongoing transition to alternative green fuels. The contributions discussing alternative fuels in the December edition of SWZ|Maritime address respectively the outline of this (national) roadmap and some of the next courses of action.
It is followed by a more specific contribution on bio-based fuels, then a preview of what is to come on an IMO/EU level, and the latest on the so far most promising methanol technology developments. The series is concluded with a view on the vision and ambitions of the Port of Rotterdam as an important manufacturing and bunkering hub of today’s and future fuels.
This article is the foreword of the SWZ|Maritime December special on future fuels, written by Johan de Jong, editor of SWZ|Maritime and Manager International Relations at MARIN, j.h.de.Jong@marin.nl.
How is the shipping industry progressing when it comes to the introduction of alternative energy carriers in general? Without claiming to have a systematic or numerical overview of the worldwide introduction of alternative fuels, some general trends can be seen following the high uncertainties regarding the definite choice of fuels, the availability and the pricing of these energy carriers of the future. These uncertainties lead to a variety of approaches to cope with the increasingly more demanding decarbonisation regulations.
There is agreement on the general picture of what the future of decarbonisation looks like. This involves a diverse set of multiple decarbonisation solutions based upon effective combinations of energy carriers and technical energy conversion solutions. Eventually, this will lead to multiple energy carriers being produced and new infrastructures (supply and storage). Each solution will be suitable for a specific transport demand defined by its transport distance, transport volume, transit speed requirement, sea environment, and so on. So far all very typical for shipping!
And as a prerequisite for all these solutions, high propulsion efficiency should be sought, either by design (Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)) or in the operation of the vessel (Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII)) or perhaps even logistics. These solutions are slowly, but steadily developing through new propulsion devices, wind assist options (getting traction!), improved voyage planning, vessel cleaning regimes, forms of air lubrication, et cetera.
Also read: SWZ|Maritime’s December 2024 issue: Finland and the quest for clean fuels
Main trends
Further to this common ambition, three main trends on decarbonisation are visible. They are:
1. Filling transport niches with specific energy carrier/conversion solutions
These solutions match well with the particular combination of commercially viable or locally enforced, and technically feasible transition frame. Often, availability of the chosen energy carrier is part of this frame. Here, numerous examples exist ranging from battery-electric ferries and tugs to dedicated zero-carbon offshore operations like dredging or installation using locally produced methanol.
With the increasing battery capacity per tonne weight, the operating ranges of these electrified solutions will grow. With the quest for “green and clean” operations within public and sustainable energy projects stepping up, the application of methanol will also grow.
2. The growing number of (networks of) “green” corridors
Strategically located hubs connecting large liners’ transport flows will start to set up the first corridors supported by selected fuels and then develop them further into corridor connections (networks). The larger hubs with either larger volumes or more strict regulations are the first that are capable of organising (attracting, investing, facilitating) production, storage and the infrastructure of these selected fuels. See also in our December issue the contribution from the Port of Rotterdam.
In later stages, the network will extend, the selection of fuels will grow and ultimately smaller ports and other trades will follow.
3. The smart “dual-fuelers” wait and see group
Shipowners facing new investments are highly uncertain about which future onboard power energy system to invest in. Their assets last long and making the wrong choice could easily lead to stranded assets due to either non-availability, high pricing or both of the chosen energy carrier.
Their no-regrets choice for dual-fuel internal combustion engine (ICE) solutions seem to offer two (relative) advantages. It offers the flexibility of using as long as possible the still widely available fossil fuels (including liquefied natural gas (LNG), and marine gas oil (MGO)), which further in time will automatically be mixed with a growing percentage of fossil-like bio-based green fuels. See elsewhere in the SWZ December issue the contribution on “Het investeringspad voor groene scheepsbrandstoffen”.
The (world) market for these bio-fuels is steadily developing based upon available feedstock and a pretty predictable growth in demand (known to be accelerating in 2035), hence a relatively ascertained availability. Of course, price development is much less certain, but will hurt all now following that track in the same way, thus, supporting the level playing field.
And secondly, with these dual-fuel engines, shipowners can ultimately change to the alternative e-fuels if their pricing becomes more attractive. Still, the latter does require provisions for the future (higher) bunkering volumes.
Of course, another part of the “wait and see” group is not even investing in dual-fuel solutions and is watching and waiting for the silver bullet to hit them…
Also read: Push for EU investment in clean maritime fuels
Regulations and level playing field
The above underlines the importance of two key drivers; regulations and a level playing field, next to the key of alternative fuels availability. On the latter, recent news items illustrate an ongoing battle with large investors lowering their investments (Norske Hydro, Neste, Shell, and so on).
Continued research and development on sustainable technologies certainly is worth the effort to enable a diversity in tracks and well-founded decisions on new technologies.
Picture: Shipowners facing new investments are highly uncertain about which future onboard power energy system to invest in and so they often just decide to wait and see (illustration by Hans de Wilde).
Also read: ECSA en T&E: Make clean fuels available for shipping
