It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
The agro-fuel transition closes a 200-year chapter in the relation between agriculture and industry that began with the Industrial Revolution. Then, the invention of the steam engine promised an end to drudgery. However, industry’s take-off lagged until governments privatized common lands, driving the poorest peasants out of agriculture and into urban factories. Peasant agriculture effectively subsidized industry with both cheap food and cheap labor. Over the next 100 years, as industry grew, so did the urban percentage of the world’s population: from 3% to 13%. Cheap oil and petroleum-based fertilizers opened up agriculture itself to industrial capital. Mechanization intensified production, keeping food prices low and industry booming. The next hundred years saw a three-fold global shift to urban living. Today, the world has as many people living in cities as in the countryside. [10] The massive transfer of wealth from agriculture to industry, the industrialization of agriculture, and the rural-urban shift are all part of the “Agrarian Transition,” the lesser-known twin of the Industrial Revolution. The Agrarian/Industrial twins transformed most of the world’s fuel and food systems and established non-renewable petroleum as the foundation of today’s multi-trillion dollar agri-foods complex.
The pillars of the agri-foods industry are the great grain corporations, e.g., ADM, Cargill and Bunge. They are surrounded by an equally formidable phalanx of food processors, distributors, and supermarket chains on one hand, and agro-chemical, seed, and machinery companies on the other. Together, these industries consume four of every five food dollars. For some time, the production side of the agri-foods complex has suffered from agricultural “involution” in which increasing rates of investment (chemical inputs, genetic engineering, and machinery) have not increased the rates of agricultural productivity—the agri-foods complex is paying more and reaping less.
Agro-fuels are the perfect answer to involution because they’re subsidized, grow as oil shrinks, and facilitate the concentration of market power in the hands of the most powerful players in the food and fuel industries. Like the original Agrarian Transition, the present Agro-fuels Transition will “enclose the commons” by industrializing the remaining forests and prairies of the world. It will drive the planet’s remaining smallholders, family farmers, and indigenous peoples to the cities. It will funnel rural resources to urban centers in the form of fuel, and will generate massive amounts of industrial wealth.
The U.S. Department of Energy is investing in research for low- and net-zero-carbon SMFs to replace heavy fuel oil in maritime activities.
Major companies, like Chevron, are partnering with marine fuel suppliers to develop and trial sustainable bio-based diesel in the U.S. and EU markets.
The World Shipping Council emphasizes the need for regulatory frameworks to provide investment certainty and guide the industry towards the 2050 decarbonization goal.
Sustainable marine fuels are finally gaining more traction as governments and private companies around the world look to decarbonise the shipping industry. This hard-to-abate industry contributes approximately three percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions at present, and as trade and passenger transport continue to increase, this figure could grow exponentially if nothing is done to decarbonise the sector. Meanwhile, the World Shipping Council (WSC) says better regulations are needed to ensure investments in green fuel are put to good use.
In the U.S., the Department of Energy (DOE) Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) is working towards the development of low- and net-zero-carbon sustainable marine fuels (SMFs) to decarbonise the shipping sector. While there is potential for smaller boats to be powered by lithium batteries or hydrogen fuel cells, larger vessels that travel longer distances will require a different approach. BETO is currently investing in research into the production of innovative green fuels that could help replace fossil fuels in powering maritime activities.
Over 90 percent of the goods transported around the world are carried on cargo ships, which rely on heavy fuel oil (HFO) for their power. This fuel comes from petroleum refining activities, which emit huge levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. In contrast, SMFs are produced using materials and methods that help reduce GHGs. They can be made using feedstocks, such as forestry and agricultural waste, non-food energy crops, waste oils, fats, and greases, landfill gas and other waste products.
There are two main approaches to the development of SMFs, the production of fuels that can be used in existing or modified vessels and the manufacturing of fuels that can be used in new, specially made ships. Low-emissions drop-in fuels can be used in existing ship engines without the need for modification, making them suitable for the immediate decarbonisation of the sector. These include renewable diesel, biodiesel, hydrotreated vegetable oil, bio-oil, and bio-crude. Meanwhile, emerging marine fuels with zero or near-zero GHG emissions are being developed to be used in new or modified ship engines, meaning they are suitable for mid- and long-term decarbonisation efforts. These include bio-methanol, lignin-alcohol mixes, and bio-based natural gas
One of the biggest limitations to emerging marine fuels is the time required to roll these out at the commercial level. It can take several years to develop new ship technology and manufacture a fleet of new vessels, meaning that these fuels cannot be used in the short term to decarbonise marine activities.
Many major companies are now investing in the development and production of SMFs to support the decarbonisation of activities, as governments push companies to support a green transition. Oil and gas giant Chevron hopes to increase its production of renewable diesel to 100,000 bpd by 2030. In 2022, Chevron Renewable Energy Group entered a strategic agreement with Bunker Holding Group, the world’s largest supplier and trader of marine fuels, to develop the U.S. and EU marine markets for sustainable bio-based diesel. The partnership is currently running trials with B20 and B30 SMF across both regions.
Bob Kenyon, Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing at Chevron Renewable Energy Group stated of the partnership, “At Chevron Renewable Energy Group we see clearly the opportunity for biodiesel to be a sustainable fuel option of choice for customers in the clean energy transition. Partnering with Bunker Holding will accelerate the marine industry adoption of biodiesel to achieve aggressive carbon reduction goals.” Kenyon added, “Our renewable fuels and customer service are helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today and offer a plug-and-play solution for the current shipping infrastructure. We look forward to further developing our relationship with Bunker Holding and supporting the shipping industry’s decarbonization movement.”
While strides are being made in the development of SMFs, John Butler, President and CEO of the World Shipping Council (WSC) says, “To ensure there are renewable fuels available to run… ships in a competitive manner, energy providers must see regulations written in the next two years that demonstrate sufficient demand for new fuels to justify the massive investments need in the immediate future. The challenge for member states at IMO (International Maritime Organisation) is not just to agree, but to agree on regulations that will provide investment certainty. If we can get this right from the beginning, we will speed the energy transition and make it more affordable by avoiding stranded investments.”
Butler believes the WSC must establish GHG fuel intensity standards to guide the industry. This would support technology and vessel development and drive SMF production. It would allow shipowners and energy providers to better understand the global demand for SMF and facilitate the transformation of the global fleet. Butler says that “IMO regulations must evaluate and reward a given ship or group of ships based on the GHG reduction achieved”. The WSC has urged member states to implement implementing the necessary regulatory framework by 2025, for full implementation in 2027, to support the decarbonisation of the shipping sector by 2050.
But at what cost? The death of the Wheat Board so that the big agribusiness corporations that are producing bio-fuels, like Archer Daniels Midlands, can gain more state subsidies
The answer is Bio Fuels, which the Green Party supports. The problem is that they are not economical, without massive state subsidies. And the Green Party knows that.
Ethanol is the best reference biofuel when discussing options for biodiesel support. In the last 3 years, Canadian ethanol capacity has grown from 175 million litres to 1.2 billion litres. To initiate the rapid growth of a Canadian ethanol industry, the government of Canada provided $123.9 million in capital subsidies to corporations during the first two rounds of the Ethanol Expansion Program ethanol production has increased as a direct result of the capitalization assistance
Currently, 110 grain ethanol biorefineries have the capacity to produce more than 5.3 billion gallons of ethanol ethanol.An additional 79 (81 according to their latest update of their list) construction projects are underway that will add nearly 6 billion gallons of new ethanol production capacity.
Archer Daniels Midland remains the largest producer with 1,070 mgy of capacity at six sites and 275 mgy under construction or planned. VeraSun comes in second and US Bioenergy third, each with less than half of ADM's capacity.
And the biggest critcs of the biofuel hoax are environmentalists, not political opportunists like May and her Party.
Biomass for biofuel isn't worth it Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations.
Once again the State interferes in the marketplace and prices jump on commodities exchanges.
In the U.S. George Bush announced subsidies for bio-fuels not once but twice in State of the Union addresses.
And while he talked about switchgrass and other waste material based biomass, no funding opportunities have been created to subsidize this.
Instead bio-fuel announcements have fed the monopoly agribusiness oligopolies like ADM, who specialize in corn and wheat based ethanol production.
In Canada part of the Governments Green Plan and its efforts to undermine the Wheat Board was to announce subsidies for ethanol production.
While the only existing wheat straw based bio-fuel company in the world with new technology, remember that new technology that the government talks about is going to solve the global warming crisis, can't find anywhere to pedal its technology in Canada and is looking for investors. Just as its American counterparts are.
Meanwhile in Mexico tortilla prices have skyrocketed on ethanol speculation as corn is transformed from a basic food stuff into a fuel for financial speculation.
In Canada and the United States the increase in corn speculation has led to higher costs for pig farmers.
Bio-fuels are not a green solution, in fact they are not ecological at all, but a way to subsidize big Agribusiness like ADM and the financial markets. The only green about them is greenbacks.
In fact, in the fall of 1998, Celunol, then called BC International, announced plans to build a cellulosic ethanol plant in Jennings with Department of Energy assistance. The plant was never built, a spokesman says, because the company wasn't able to secure the rest of the financing.
Today, Celunol has competition in the race to build the first cellulosic ethanol plant. The enzymes company Iogen operates a small wheat-straw-based facility in Canada and is scouting locations for a larger plant. Kansas became America’s top wheat grower, regularly producing close to one-fifth of the country’s total harvest. With their sheaves of wheat, called shocks, stacked upright everywhere in the fields to dry, wheat became so ingrained in the Kansas mind-set that Wichita State University adopted the name Shockers for its mascot.
But in the last two decades, farmers have increasingly turned to corn and soybeans, which need nearly twice as much water.
“That part of the state is going to be out of water in about 25 years at the current rate of consumption,” said Mike Hayden, the secretary of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks and a former Kansas governor.
Along with its connection to Brian Mulroney, Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, the major beneficiary of subsidies for bio-fuels in the United States and Canada has a connection with Conrad Black.
ADM's de facto monopoly in ethanol and its subjugating influence across wide swaths of our agro-food system has been accomplished stealthily over decades and is currently enforced by several largely hidden (but interlocking) realities: (1) political contributions and placement of ADM-approved toadies at all levels of government, particularly USDA and Congress, (2) a large phalanx of controlled trade associations, commodity groups, and related foundations at national, state and local levels and (3) controlling influence in important media sectors through stock ownership of newspapers, advertising and holding companies.
Let's illustrate the last point --- Have you been watching the public destruction of Conrad Black, erstwhile chairman of Hollinger International, and a member of British House of Lords? Hollinger, which controlled, among other assets, The Chicago Sun Times, The London Daily Telegraph and dozens of smaller newspapers, began imploding shortly after ADM's chairman emeritus Dwayne O. Andreas and another longtime ADM director, Robert Strauss, resigned their board seats at Hollinger in early 2003.
Other ADM directors and toadies, including former Ambassador Richard Burt and former Illinois governor James Thompson, continued serving on Hollinger's board and helped spark an internal investigation, brought in a former SEC chairman for window dressing and dumped Black amid a swirl of nasty allegations. Having orchestrated Black's ouster, by exposing audits and other internal revelations of indefensible corporate greed, it would appear the "Pot (Andreas) can call the kettle (Black)" and get away unscathed --- while simultaneously riding the public's post-Enron indignation.
Maersk continues to forge ahead with efforts to develop methanol as an alternative fuel to support the maritime industry’s transition. The shipping company is supporting the development of a large green methanol production facility in Central Louisiana while in Singapore they completed the port’s first-ever ship-to-ship methanol bunkering operation. With its maiden voyage underway, the first containership fueled by methanol is now a little over a month away from reaching Maersk’s headquarters in Copenhagen.
Singapore’s Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) is highlighting the unique bunkering operation and the preparation it undertook. Before the operation, extensive safety preparations were made, including tabletop exercises, workshops, and a ground deployment exercise involving various stakeholders and government agencies. The MPA highlights that it conducted a thorough risk and environmental impact assessment, reviewed global methanol-related incidents, and incorporated the use of drones, weather and tide forecasting, plume modeling, and monitoring to support the operation.
The 32,300 dwt containership built in South Korea which will be officially named Laura Maersk when it reaches Copenhagen, arrived in Singapore on July 26 from Shanghai. Working with Hong Lam Marine which received the green methanol from Vopak Terminals, the vessel was refueled with approximately 300 metric tonnes of bio-methanol from the bunker vessel MT Agility. The containership will depart Singapore for the more than 5,300 nautical mile voyage to the Suez Canal.
Singapore undertook extensive preparations to ensure the safety of the bunkering operation (MPA)
As the voyage continues, Maersk also continues to build out its global supply network for the future fuel that will be required for its fleet of ocean-going methanol dual-fuel ships now on order as well as the other major carriers that have followed with orders for ships.
SunGas Renewables, a Louisiana-based company spun out of GTI Energy to focus on renewable syngas products announced plans to proceed with the construction of a large green methanol production facility that is expected to supply methanol to Maersk’s fleet. The company plans to invest approximately $2 billion to construct the project at the former International Paper facility in Rapides Parish, Louisiana. Construction is expected to begin in late 2024 with commercial operations commencing in 2027.
“Using biomass from sustainably managed forestry along with carbon capture allows our project to generate green marine shipping fuel while simultaneously removing carbon from the atmosphere,” explains Robert Rigdon, CEO of SunGas Renewables.
The project which will be called Beaver Lake Renewable Energy is expected to produce nearly 400,000 metric tons of green methanol per year for marine fuel. It will utilize wood fiber from local, sustainably-managed forests in the production of the fuel with a carbon sequestration process of nearly a million tons per year of CO2.
In late 2022, SunGas Renewables announced a strategic green methanol partnership with Maersk to produce green methanol from multiple facilities around the United States. The BLRE project is SunGas Renewable’s first facility to produce green methanol for Maersk.
SEA-LNG Highlights Growth of Bio-LNG Bunkering
SEA-LNG highlights the growth of bio-LNG to meet shipping's demands and emerging regulations (CMA CGM file photo)
SEA-LNG, the industry coalition established to demonstrate the commercial advantages of LNG as a marine fuel, is reporting strong growth in the availability of bio-LNG including in major bunkering ports. Growth of the alternative fuel is increasingly important both to support the expansion of the LNG-fueled fleet and to meet emerging regulations designed to reduce methane emissions as well as support the development of renewable fuels that do not compete with the production of food.
The European Council’s moves this week to complete the adoption of FuelEU Maritime due to become effective in 2025 highlight the critical need for bio-alternative fuels that meet the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive and requirements that fuels do not compete with food production. SEA-LNG reports that the current fleet of 355 LNG-fueled vessels, excluding LNG carriers, are all capable of using bio-LNG as a drop-in fuel without modification. DNV on its Alternative Fuels Insight platform estimates that the LNG-fueled global fleet with grown by 2.5 times in the next five years to nearly 1,000 ships.
SEA-LNG in its market analysis reports that annual production of biomethane, from which bio-LNG is produced, is currently around 30 million tonnes or around 10 percent of shipping’s total annual energy demand. Further, they report that bio-LNG is currently available in almost 70 ports worldwide, including in Singapore, Rotterdam, and the US East Coast. They highlight that bio-LNG can also be transported, stored, and bunkered in ports using the existing LNG infrastructure, which provides a route to further expansion of its availability in coming years.
“The fact that bio-LNG is commercially available now and being used as a drop-in marine fuel by operators in Europe, North America, and Asia, demonstrates the sustained contribution that the LNG pathway can make to decarbonizing our industry, starting today,” said Adi Aggarwal, General Manager of SEA-LNG. “Climate change is a stock and flow problem, the longer our industry waits to start using low-carbon fuels, the tougher the decarbonization challenge will be.”
Bio-LNG used in the maritime industry is produced from sustainable biomass feedstocks such as human or agricultural waste, which means it does not compete with the production of food, fiber, or fodder, as defined by regulations such as the EU’s RED II and the Renewable Fuel Standards in America. SEA-LNG highlights that in general, the use of bio-LNG as a marine fuel can reduce GHG emissions by up to 80 percent compared to marine diesel on a full well-to-wake basis. They further contend that depending on the method of production, bio-LNG can have net-zero or even net-negative GHG emissions on a lifecycle basis.
Environmentalists have been critical of the growth of the LNG fleet pointing to methane slip, the condition where unburnt methane which is especially harmful to the environment is contained in a ship’s exhaust. Global regulations, including an initiative from the UN Climate Summit, specifically are targeting methane slip at all sources from production to the use of LNG as a fuel source. SEA-LNG argues that newer marine engines and technologies are reducing methane slip while additional research is also underway to eliminate methane emissions from ship’s exhausts.
SEA-LNG also addresses the challenge of scaling up bio-methane production to meet demand. The industry coalition cites research from the Nanyang Technological University’s Maritime Energy and Sustainable Development Centre of Excellence (MESD) released in October 2022, showing the global potential for the expansion of biomethane production of up to 20 times current production levels by 2050. Accounting for demand for other sectors, MESD forecasts that bio-LNG as a marine fuel could be available in sufficient quantity to decarbonize approximately 13 percent of the global shipping fleet in 2050.
HHI Gets Approval for Ammonia-Based Shipboard HVAC Plant
ABS has issued an approval in principle to HD Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) for its new ammonia-based ship HVAC refrigeration system.
Ammonia is the most common industrial refrigerant worldwide because of its excellent efficiency and affordable price. In addition, it has zero greenhouse-gas impact, unlike some modern refrigerants, and has no effect on the ozone layer. It is a common refrigerant aboard reefer ships and large fishing vessels, with decades of proven service.
Ammonia's drawbacks are also well-known, and much discussed in the maritime industry. It is toxic and flammable, and these safety challenges have to be managed in a shipboard environment. Its long history in fishing and in shoreside applications have established its risk/benefit profile, and two research studies recently concluded that it can be used safely as a marine fuel - with the right precautions. Extending its use to merchant shipboard HVAC is a small step towards far larger ammonia-fuel systems.
HHI developed its new ammonia refrigeration system in response to shipowners’ requests for a more eco-friendly refrigerant for HVAC, the company said in a statement. Ammonia's attractiveness for the owner is in its zero global warming potential, as well as its inherent safety for the ozone layer. Hwan-Sik Lee, head of the ship design office at HD Hyundai Heavy Industries, emphasized that HHI wants to help reduce the GHG footprint of the whole ship, not just the propulsion system.
“This is an exciting development from HHI for the maritime industry’s decarbonization quest to find sustainable solutions. ABS has always been a safety pioneer, so we are well placed to tackle the challenges on board and ashore presented by ammonia’s toxicity and flammability. ABS is committed to leading the industry in supporting ammonia’s safe adoption at sea,” said Panos Koutsourakis, ABS Vice President, Global Sustainability.
Thursday, June 08, 2023
Op-Ed: Bio-LNG En Route to Deliver Decarbonization
The zero-emissions profile, availability, and cost of bio-LNG as a marine fuel have been widely discussed in the maritime industry. This includes in my last article, ‘The Emergence of Bio-LNG’ and The Maritime Executive’s coverage of the latest independent study commissioned by SEA-LNG – ‘The Role of Bio-LNG in the Decarbonization of Shipping’.
The expanding use of bio-LNG and the regulations surrounding its use continues to evolve as we travel down the LNG pathway to decarbonization. Work is now focused on the finer details such as the realization of regulations, feedstock traceability, and cementing the next steps on the journey. These practical discussions highlight the growing maturity of the bio-LNG value chain and its place in the LNG pathway that SEA-LNG has been highlighting for years.
Reaching the Regulatory Mile Marker
The journey to decarbonization is an incremental one, as recognized in the recent agreement in Brussels on FuelEU Maritime. This European legislation sets out probably the world’s most ambitious path to zero-emission shipping.
FuelEU Maritime has outlined greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity targets for all energy used onboard ships larger than 5,000 gross tonnes for intra-EU voyages, and 50% of the energy used on ships stopping in the EU and sailing to or from ports outside the EU. The trajectory specified starts with a 2% reduction in intensity by 2025 over a 2020 baseline, 6% by 2030, 14.5% by 2035, 31% by 2040, 62% by 2045, and 80% by 2050.
The use of LNG as a marine fuel enables vessels to be compliant with the well-to-wake GHG intensity targets proposed under the legislation until 2039, depending on engine technology. Following the LNG pathway, the use of a 20% drop-in blend of bio-LNG can extend compliance for a further 5 years. Thereafter, compliance can be achieved through increasing use of blends containing bio-LNG and its electro-fuel cousin, renewable synthetic (e-) LNG produced from renewable hydrogen as and when it becomes available together with other anticipated green fuels.
This compliance with FuelEU Maritime and strong performance within its framework highlights that the LNG pathway to decarbonization is not only a viable one but also a strong and practical route for shipowners and operators to continue to consider. The commercial weight behind LNG is proof that shipowners recognize this fact. Shipping stakeholders are investing in LNG because it provides a low risk, incremental pathway for decarbonization, starting now, not years or even a decade in the future.
Putting the right Gas in the Tank
For bio-LNG to be a zero-emission fuel, it must be produced from sustainable biomass feedstocks, i.e., those that do not compete with food, fiber, or fodder production. This generally means it is derived from waste streams, residuals from agricultural or forestry residues, as well as dedicated non-food energy crops grown on marginal land unsuitable for food production. This is not a challenge to bio-LNG supply as these feedstocks are plentiful and widely distributed.
Currently, the main way to produce bio-LNG (liquified biomethane) is through a process called anaerobic digestion. Here one puts waste biomass, mainly agricultural slurries, into a digester where it produces biogas. This biogas is then cleaned to remove impurities resulting in streams of pure biomethane and other commercially valuable byproducts.
While the traceability of bio-LNG supply chains and resulting certification is an international challenge that will require continued global collaboration, the EU does already have standards in place. Namely the revised Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2018/2001 (RED II). Certification schemes like the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification EU (ISCC EU) are compliant with this standard and are recognized by the European Commission. These certification schemes ensure that bio-LNG can be traced back to a sustainable source.
This means it is increasingly simple for ship owners and operators, bio-LNG suppliers, and regulators to ensure that they’re putting the right gas, from the right source, in the tank. The recent bunkering of MSC’s new cruise vessel, the MSC Euribia, with bio-LNG supplied by Gasum, sets a new global standard for vessels operating at net zero emissions through the use of bio-LNG. When bio-LNG from sustainable biomass feedstocks is used, the net-zero or net-negative emissions benefits are clear. Further, there is a significant contribution to the circular economy offered by bio-LNG as it turns waste into a viable product.
Comparing the Viable Routes
Just as your satellite navigation systems might compare multiple routes to a destination, the shipping industry must compare its routes to zero emissions. The sat nav’s computer evaluates each route based on a consistent set of metrics and calculations and we must do the same for the emissions, availability, cost, and safety implications of each alternative fuel. We must compare alternative fuel pathways on a like-to-like basis.
It is also important to recognize that there can be multiple viable routes to decarbonization. Just as today, different vessel types may favor certain fuels due to design and operational considerations, that will continue into the future. SEA-LNG has long stated that there are likely to be a basket of alternative fuels and technologies if shipping is to reach its decarbonization destination. Our coalition believes the LNG pathway currently offers the safest, most practical, and realistic, cost-competitive pathway to net zero for maritime. It also is the only pathway with significant infrastructure in place thereby freeing the industry from massive investments into untried technologies.
The shipping industry is making newbuild investment decisions right now that will impact emissions today and for the next 25-30 years, the typical lifetime of a deep-sea vessel. Shipowners and operators need factual and practical like-for-like analysis that can inform their decisions and actions.
Acting now on shipping’s GHG emissions is a key point. Waiting is not an option. GHG emissions are cumulative and the longer low-emission, zero-emission, and net zero fuel decisions are delayed, the more carbon continues to accumulate in our atmosphere. Shipowners and operators can start down the LNG pathway to decarbonization now because the technologies are mature, and the fuel and infrastructure are in place. The LNG pathway to decarbonization looks like a four-lane highway, while some alternative routes look more like dirt tracks with the first paving is only in the initial planning phase.
Peter Keller is the chairman of SEA-LNG, a multi-sector industry coalition established to demonstrate LNG's benefits as a viable marine fuel.
The production of biofuels, long a cornerstone of the quest for greener energy, may sometimes create more harmful emissions than fossil fuels, scientific studies are finding.
As I have blogged here, Palm Oil production is creating an eco disaster in Indonesia and Malaysia with wildfires and threats to the endangered Organutan population.
And this is why the Harpocrites want to open the market up to the big Agribusiness giants like ADM and Cargill who also produce soya, palm oil, etc. But to do that they must eliminate the Wheat Board.
Biofuels are not ecologically sound alternatives to petroleum, they are just another capitalist band-aid, like Kyoto with its carbon exchange marketing.
Capitalism can only offer 'profit based' ways of adjusting to the current ecological and environmental crisis we face. That is because this crisis is about capitalism, which is not sustainable.
That is the real problem of Green Capitalism and all the so called Green alternatives, they are not alternatives at all, merely attempts to ameliorate the worst excesses of capitalism.
Without the development of democratic self managed (worker community control) socialism, capitalism Green or otherwise will continue to lead to planetary entropy.
Op-Ed: Is a Fossil-Free Future for Shipping a Realistic Goal?
Without extreme caution, we may pull high-carbon fuels into the value chain in pursuit of the zero-emissions dream.
The world's first hydrogen tanker loads its first cargo of coal-based H2 for the Japanese-Australian HESC project, January 2022 (HESC)PUBLISHED FEB 4, 2022 4:15 PM BYPAUL BLOMERUS
LONG READ
Countries around the world are adopting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets of zero emissions by 2050. The global marine shipping industry is also evaluating whether to increase the current International Maritime Organization agreed target of a 50 percent reduction by 2050 to a 100 percent reduction. Large international shipping companies such as Maersk, MSC and CMA CGM, have already committed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 or sooner.
Replacing the current fossil fuels used in ships – such as heavy fuel oil – with cleaner alternative fuels could provide solutions to the challenge of decarbonization and Clear Seas’ ongoing research on reducing GHGs from marine fuels provides some valuable insights.
Electrify the fuel
To find a path to zero-carbon marine shipping, the complete system from fuel production through to its consumption to propel the ship needs to be considered. Fortunately, years of innovation have made ships the most efficient form of transport worldwide, and allowed the development of the most fuel-efficient engines and propeller drives. Energy efficiency measures – such as using high tech sails – can help reduce the amount of fuel ships need, but the remaining energy needed to power ships has to come from somewhere. Could renewable electricity be used as a clean source of power?
Electrification holds great promise for reducing GHG emissions from a whole range of existing fossil fuel intensive processes in industry, home heating and vehicles. This is because renewable low-carbon electricity from wind and solar has fallen in cost to make it a plentiful and economically viable alternative.
But how do we get this cleaner electricity from the source to the ships? Batteries are a great option for short trips on vessels like ferries and pleasure boats, but for large-scale ocean transport they are too heavy and bulky to store the required energy. This is where alternative fuels come in. By converting electricity into fuels – so called e-fuels – there is a potential means to solve the problem of how to transport the electricity to the ships.
Hydrogen as a building block
The best way scientists and engineers have found to convert electricity into a fuel is through a process called electrolysis that splits water (H2O) into the hydrogen and oxygen it is made of by running electricity through it in an electrolyzer. Large amounts of electricity are required for this process – the entire daily average electricity consumed by a Canadian household would only make half a kilogram of hydrogen through electrolysis, with the equivalent energy content to drive a family car just 12 miles. But the result is hydrogen gas produced without any fossil fuels – referred to as “green” hydrogen.
Unfortunately, hydrogen alone is not a very good fuel for ships. Though hydrogen can be burned quite efficiently in the ship’s engine, refueling and storage onboard the ship presents a significant challenge. Hydrogen is a highly flammable, lighter than air gas and, even when pressurized into cylinders or liquified through a cooling process, it remains too bulky in the quantities required to replace regular marine fuel. Hydrogen storage tanks are also costly, heavy and energy intensive to fill.
Example of a hydrogen factory concept powered with renewable energy sources. The hydrogen plant to be built in Varennes, Quebec, will use hydroelectric power.
But all is not lost for alternative fuels. By combining the green hydrogen produced through electrolysis with other gases like nitrogen, carbon dioxide and oxygen, found in the atmosphere, simple compounds like ammonia, methanol and methane can be manufactured and more easily stored in ship fuel tanks in the quantities required. These chemical compounds can still be burned in existing ship engines if small modifications are made to their design and construction. But to make these synthetic alternative fuels out of hydrogen, sustainable sources of the other chemical elements are needed.
Ammonia fuel is a front runner but it’s toxic
Of the synthetic alternative fuels under consideration, manufacturing ammonia from green hydrogen is perhaps the easiest. The process is widely used today for fertilizer manufacturing and the only other element required for ammonia, chemical formula NH3, is nitrogen – and this is in plentiful supply in the air that surrounds us. The bad news is that separating the nitrogen from the air is an energy intensive process, as is the ammonia manufacture. Another challenge with ammonia is that if spilled, it can turn into a toxic vapour cloud that is deadly for humans and animals. So why is ammonia even considered? Its ease of manufacture on a vast industrial scale and our experience in safely transporting it in bulk on ships, trains and trucks for the fertilizer industry are good reasons to back ammonia in the alternative fuels race.
The ammonia molecule (formula NH3)
Burning ammonia in a ship engine has been proven to be possible, and although there are concerns regarding GHG emissions from the nitrous oxides produced in its exhaust as well as the smog-producing nitrogen oxides (NOx), these look like they can be managed. Ammonia gas can be turned into liquid for transportation and storage by chilling it to a relatively modest -27 degrees F.
Methane fuel draws on fossil fuel experience
Synthetic e-methane has an advantage over ammonia in that its fossil precursor has already been widely used as a ship fuel in the form of liquefied natural gas. This means that we already have processes, standards and regulations for the safe design and operation of ships using methane as a fuel. However, one major drawback of synthetic methane is that, like the prime component of fossil natural gas, it is itself a greenhouse gas. Though relatively short lived compared to carbon dioxide, its unintended release would need to be vigilantly prevented in a similar way to other synthetic GHGs like refrigerants.
The second disadvantage is one that it shares with methanol: manufacturing methane (chemical formula CH4) requires the addition of carbon represented by C in the formula. Although carbon in the form of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion surrounds us, capturing it and using this source of carbon does not produce zero GHG fuel because the carbon originates from a fossil source.
Instead, manufacturers of zero GHG methane need to either capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from the combustion of plant matter, for example at pulp mills or wood-fired power plants, or capture it directly from the atmosphere.
The supply of carbon dioxide from biological sources like wood that captured the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through natural processes is limited, so long-term solutions for zero GHG marine fuels would need to rely on so-called direct air capture methods that chemically extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It remains to be seen if the cost of carbon captured this way can be decreased low enough through scaling up of these processes to make synthetic fuels containing direct air captured carbon dioxide.
The methane molecule (formula CH4)
Methane’s main advantage over other synthetic fuels is that it can be used in existing LNG-fuelled ships without modification and can utilize the existing and growing infrastructure built for the transportation of fossil fuels. The same infrastructure and fuel tanks could potentially also be used to store ammonia, even though its storage temperature of -27 F is not nearly as low as the -260 F that is required for LNG. Ammonia has a higher density than liquefied methane, so this would also need to be factored in to designs of LNG fuel infrastructure.
Methanol fuel is a complex but easier to manage alternative
Methanol, while still toxic, would be easier to manage than both ammonia and methane because it is a liquid at room temperature. There is significant experience safely transporting it in bulk on ships for the global chemical trade and burning it in an engine seems to present few problems.
Methanex Corp., of Vancouver, B.C., operates the largest fleet of methanol tankers in the world, a growing proportion of which are now equipped with methanol burning engines. Unfortunately, the methanol burned in these engines is produced from fossil natural gas, and Clear Seas research has revealed that more GHG emissions come from this fossil methanol than from existing fossil fuels produced from oil.
But the fossil methanol production infrastructure also presents an opportunity. Usually, industrial methanol is produced using hydrogen made by splitting fossil natural gas in a steam methane reformer. The first step in producing zero GHG methanol is to substitute the hydrogen from fossil natural gas with green hydrogen produced from electrolysis. Unfortunately, like methane, methanol also requires a source of carbon because its chemical formula (CH3OH) contains a C for carbon. Like e-methane, direct air capture of atmospheric carbon dioxide would once again need to be deployed to manufacture e-methanol.
The methanol molecule (formula CH3OH)
The challenge of scaling up green hydrogen production from electrolysis
Ammonia, methane, and methanol rely on a plentiful supply of green hydrogen from electrolysis. This is the crucial and potentially weakest link in the chain. Plans are starting to be put into effect to develop a network of green hydrogen production facilities and Canada’s low-carbon electricity grid supplied through hydroelectric power makes it an attractive location. Varennes, Que., will be the site of one of the world’s largest green hydrogen facilities. Costing $200 million, the plant will consume 88 megawatts of electricity and produce 11,000 tonnes of hydrogen annually. But this only equates to enough energy to supply just over half the fuel needed for a single large container ship with pure hydrogen.
Clearly, it’s not economically viable or practical for each ship to have two $200 million fuel production facilities supplying it. Advances in electrolysis technology will be required to improve the output, but fundamental limitations created by the chemical energy required to split water molecules make this a challenge – a maximum of just 26 grams of hydrogen for every kilowatt hour of electricity consumed. So, if the Varennes plant could be made 100 percent efficient and ran 24 hours a day, its output would only increase to 20,000 tonnes of hydrogen per year, enough for one container ship. Making the synthetic ammonia, methanol or methane with the hydrogen does make it go a little further, but making enough green hydrogen to decarbonize the global marine shipping industry remains a significant challenge.
Could hydrogen from fossil natural gas bridge the gap?
Hydrogen for the petrochemical industry is usually produced by heating fossil natural gas in the presence of steam – so called steam methane reforming. Could this be used to substitute for the green hydrogen until electrolysis technology is improved? Clear Seas research indicates that hydrogen produced through this method emits more GHGs than conventional marine fuel produced from oil. It should not be considered as an alternative.
Carbon capture and sequestration is often proposed to fix this problem of excessive carbon dioxide emissions created when hydrogen is produced from natural gas. Canada is the site of one of the largest carbon capture and sequestration plants in the world. Shell Canada’s Quest facility near Edmonton, Alberta cost $1.35 billion and can capture and store just over 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in underground caverns. This may sound like a lot of carbon dioxide, but in reality, it equates to the annual carbon dioxide emissions of just five large container ships.
Although Shell plans to expand the capacity for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration to almost 10 times the Quest facility, these projects are primarily designed to deal with the emissions from Shell’s gas processing and oil refineries and could never cope with the emissions from large-scale hydrogen production for marine fuel. And even if capture and sequestration could be scaled up, there is uncertainty in the scientific community about the ability of the underground rock formations to sequester carbon dioxide without it leaking out over time.
Canadian renewable energy company Ekona Power Inc., of Burnaby, B.C., is piloting an alternative technology called pyrolysis that splits the methane in natural gas into hydrogen and carbon dust. This carbon dust could be more easily managed and disposed of than carbon dioxide gas, but the technology is still at a very early stage of development.
How about biofuels?
Biofuel versions of both methane and methanol can be produced from any organic material. Plants are where most organic material comes from, and they capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so when they are turned into fuel to be burned it is considered carbon neutral.
Bio-methanol can be produced by heating wood chips until they produce a gas and then cleaning and purifying that gas to create the final product. Methanol is also produced in wood pulp mills as a by-product of the pulping process, but this is usually burned by the pulp mills to generate energy. In theory, these sources of bio-methanol could be directed to providing ship fuel. But global production of bio-methanol is currently extremely limited and is estimated at only 0.2 million tonnes per year by the International Renewable Energy Association. This would only be enough fuel for fewer than two large container ships.
Bio-methane is more common than bio-methanol, and the Canadian Biogas Association calculates that six petajoules of gas is currently produced at 280 sites across Canada alone. These include digesters of animal waste as well as gas captured from landfills and sewage treatment works. For context, six petajoules is only enough gas to fuel two or three large container ships.
These two examples illustrate the immense scale of the challenge to provide biofuels for use in the marine shipping industry. With increasing demand for net-zero emission fuels, competition for the organic raw materials for fuel production will only intensify. Dedicated sources of organic matter for fuels like genetically engineered algae have failed to deliver, and concerns about the local ecological and climate change impacts of land-use changes from new vegetation plantations make these options less and less viable. Though biofuels might play a role in the transition to zero GHG marine fuels, it will likely only be a limited one.
More work is needed to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions from marine fuels
Considering the full energy system from fuel production through to energy use on the ship, ship technology is not necessarily the weak link in the chain. Solutions for fuel tanks and engines that can store and burn zero GHG emissions alternative fuels are ready now or have development programs well underway. Retrofitting the large 2-stroke engines predominately used in ocean-going ships to allow them to burn any combination of alternative fuels looks to be relatively easily accomplished, and ship designers are responding to the challenge of modularization of fuel storage to allow methane, ammonia or methanol tanks to be installed in existing ships.
The critical gaps seem to be upstream in the fuel production part of the value chain, and the large-scale production of green hydrogen from electrolysis. Current solutions will need significant advances to scale up to the volumes of production needed. If methane or methanol are to be used, then major advances in direct air capture of carbon dioxide will also be needed to provide the other raw materials for the fuel. Biofuels can help in the interim, but only a tiny amount and they don’t present a solution for the full-scale decarbonization of marine shipping.
It appears that extending our reliance on fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration of either carbon dioxide or solid carbon may need to be considered as a least bad interim option, but extreme caution is needed to guard against unintentionally bringing higher carbon intensity fuels into the value chain in the pursuit of the zero GHG emissions marine fuel dream that may never be truly realized.
Although synthesized alternative fuels provide a potential pathway to zero GHG marine shipping by 2050, it is still a narrow and treacherous one, and there is certainly scope for innovation and more radical solutions to help open the way to a truly fossil fuel free future.
Paul Blomerus is the Executive Director of Clear Seas and an internationally-experienced researcher and leader in innovation with a proven track record in industry and university research management. He holds a Ph. D. in Engineering Science from the University of Oxford, England, and a Mechanical Engineering degree with first-class honors from the University of Cape Town, in South Africa.
This article appears courtesy of Clear Seas and may be found in its original form here.
The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.
Example of a hydrogen factory concept powered with renewable energy sources. The hydrogen plant to be built in Varennes, Quebec, will use hydroelectric power.
