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)
Peninsula, the leading independent global marine energy supplier, announces the successful conclusion of the first B30 biofuel supply deal in Zeebrugge, Belgium, in collaboration with the Japanese shipping company, Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK). The deal, which marks a significant milestone in sustainable fuel distribution, saw the delivery of 1,200 metric tons of B30.
The delivery, executed on March 24, 2024, involved the vessel Garnet Leader, a vehicles carrier. Peninsula's New York barge, played the role of ensuring the smooth transportation and delivery of the biofuel to its destination in Zeebrugge.
Kaori Takahashi, General Manager of NYK’s Fuel Group, said: "NYK is proud to collaborate with Peninsula in this pioneering supply of B30 biofuel, which underscores our dedication to environmental sustainability and innovation in the maritime sector. By leveraging sustainable biofuels like B30, we are taking meaningful strides towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. NYK remains dedicated to driving positive change within the industry while meeting the evolving demands of our customers and stakeholders."
B30 biofuel, a blend comprising 30% ISCC EU certified sustainable UCOME, which is biofuel derived from Used Cooking Oil, offers a promising avenue reducing GHG emissions by 84%, thus mitigating the environmental impact of maritime operations. By using biofuel technology, Peninsula continues to pave the way for a greener future while simultaneously meeting the evolving needs of the shipping industry.
Commenting on this delivery, Peninsula's Head of Biofuels Desk, Nikolas Nikolaidis, stated: "As the maritime industry, along with prominent players like NYK, intensifies their adoption of Sustainable Marine Fuels (SMF), the accessibility of such solutions grows in significance. Peninsula is committed to collaborating closely with our established clients and partners to deliver SMF solutions where demand is highest. Peninsula is broadening its biofuel supply network, positioning itself as the leading physical marine fuel supplier to offer comprehensive biofuel solutions across multiple regions and ports for our customers."
The products and services herein described in this press release are not endorsed by The Maritime Executive.
Wednesday, June 21, 2023
Wallenius Wilhelmsen Contracts for Biofuel Supply from ExxonMobil
Wallenius Wilhelmsen will begin transition this year with biofuel from ExxonMobil (WW Ocean)
Wallenius Wilhelmsen, a Norwegian shipping giant known for its fleet of vehicle carriers, reports it has secured a supply of biofuel to help it begin the next step in its efforts toward reducing emissions and promoting eco-friendly practices. It is the latest in a series of transitional steps, including efforts at slow steaming as the company also develops plans for the world's first wind-powered RoRo vessel.
The company reports it is teaming up with ExxonMobil in a sustainable biofuel supply deal. They have contracts for the delivery of biofuel used as a drop-in blend to enhance the environmental performance of the fleet. The first biofuel delivery is scheduled for July, marking what the company calls the beginning of a transformative journey toward decarbonization. Wallenius Wilhelmsen's strategic goal calls for achieving a net-zero emissions integrated supply chain service by 2027.
“The biofuel from ExxonMobil contains 30 percent biofuel and 70 percent conventional fuels. It is the best option we have available for decarbonization of the fleet today,” says Jon Tarjei Kråkenes, head of the Orcelle Accelerator at Wallenius Wilhelmsen. “While the contracted volume represents a relatively small portion compared to our annual fuel consumption, it serves as a crucial step in our broader sustainability efforts and sets the stage for further progress."
According to the company, as the demand for eco-friendly alternatives continues to grow, partnerships like this one demonstrate the industry's dedication to fueling change. Through such initiatives, the shipping industry is reshaping its practices to reduce its carbon footprint and drive positive environmental impact.
Last week, the company highlighted additional efforts at EUKOR and WW Ocean toward greener shipping. They reported receiving an award for their participation in the Vessel Speed Reduction (VSR) program, an innovative initiative by South Korea's Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. The VSR program encourages reduced ship speeds in designated Sea Areas to decrease particulate emissions from ocean-going vessels.
The company reports that more than 90 percent of its fleet, or a total of 162 out of 182 vessels, has participated in the VSR program at the ports of Gwangyang, Ulsan, and Incheon. They have been involved in the initiative since it started in December 2019. The result contributed to a significant 5.3 percent reduction in GHG emissions and a 5.7 percent decrease in fine dust. Wallenius Wilhelmsen reports it is exploring the possibility of reaching a 100 percent participation level in the VSR program.
Saturday, August 29, 2020
CO₂ removal to halt warming soon would be a gargantuan undertaking
Nothing is perfect, and the trade-offs could be large if poorly managed.
One of the options to help us get our balance of greenhouse gas emissions down faster is to actively remove some CO2 from the atmosphere. The idea is that it can be cheaper and easier to start CO2 removal while our energy systems are transitioning than to attempt to make that transition happen quickly enough to reach our climate goals. Obviously, there’s never a free lunch, and these ideas have attracted lots of scrutiny because of their side effects and feasibility.
Crops vs. BECCS
Three studies published this week examine some of the issues of negative emissions in detail. The first focuses primarily on BECCS—bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. This is a technically attractive strategy that would involve growing biofuel crops, burning them to generate electricity, capturing the CO2 leaving the power plant’s exhaust, and storing that CO2 somewhere (probably deep underground). The added value from electricity generation makes this look cheaper than many methods that could pull similar amounts of CO2 out of the air. As a result, many emissions scenarios that manage to halt warming at 1.5°C or 2°C rely on sizable deployments of BECCS to get there.
The primary downside is the potential competition for land with food crops or forests. To get a much clearer picture, the study first set aside the land projected to be used for crops before working out the global potential for BECCS. The researchers focused on crops like switchgrass and sugarcane or woody plants like fast-growing poplar and assumed that any carbon in vegetation present on land converted to this use was lost at the start (burned, for example). They ran the numbers for BECCS as well as liquid fuels like biodiesel or ethanol, for which much of the resulting CO2 is released rather than captured.
The results highlight the importance of sweating the details—outcomes vary considerably by geographic location and methods. Clearing an area of land for crops can create a large carbon “debt” that has to be paid up before your effort accomplishes anything climate-wise. The more productive the biofuel crop is in a given climate zone and soil type, the faster it can pay that debt. Because of this, the timespan of the operation—or accounting—the better things can look. Over an 80-year period, most regions can turn a carbon storage “profit” with BECCS. But if you’re looking at the first 30 years, a number of sites would fail to overcome their initial debt.
Enlarge / Here is where BECCS could overcome its initial carbon debt (negative numbers, cool colors) for 30-year and 80-year timeframes. Hanssen et al./Nature Climate Change
So sticking with the suitable locations—and leaving cropland untouched—could BECCS supply all the carbon capture needed to make a 1.5°C warming scenario work? According to the study’s simulation, not quite, although it can get close. The effort would be massive, though. By 2100, these biofuel crops would occupy 5-16 percent of the Earth’s land area, depending on how quickly our CO2 emissions declined. At that point, BECCS power plants would be generating more electricity than the current global total. Fill up my tank
The second study was focused on producing liquid biofuels for things like airplanes and shipping. It zeroed in on an even finer scale, using ecosystem modeling based on several study sites in the eastern US. The goal was to progress beyond generic estimates and see exactly where carbon would be going in biofuel cropland, accounting for soil processes and the details of the biofuel-production process. Might there be cases where that land could have a bigger carbon impact if it were just reforested?
This scenario was based on switchgrass grown for ethanol or biofuel, with a 70-year timeframe and the initial vegetation on converted land harvested for energy rather than burned. It also included scenarios for improved switchgrass crops and fuel-making processes, as well as the possibility of capturing the carbon emitted during fuel production.
Unsurprisingly, the study found that using cropland or former pasture produced a much clearer carbon benefit than converting forest for switchgrass agriculture. But for cropland and pasture, even current methods had a greater climate benefit than restoring them to grasslands would. If the land is suitable for reforestation, on the other hand, doing so would likely beat biofuels. Introduce some improvements in switchgrass yields and biofuel production efficiency, though, and it tops reforestation for climate mitigation. So there is a positive path here in the right circumstances.
The authors write, “While climate and other ecosystem service benefits cannot be taken for granted from cellulosic biofuel deployment, our scenarios illustrate how conventional and carbon-negative biofuel systems could make a near-term, robust, and distinctive contribution to the climate challenge.” Enlarge / Here's how carbon storage accumulates for different techniques, depending on the land type used. Field et al./PNAS
DAC it up
The third study looked at an entirely different technology—“direct air capture” (DAC) of CO2 from ambient air, after which it can be stored underground. As several companies have advanced designs for this process and even built pilot plants, DAC has entered the realm of the plausible. It has the advantage of concentrating the work into the footprint of a facility rather than acres of arable land. So is DAC all the capture with none of the side effects?
Well, not exactly. It’s still comparatively quite expensive, and it trades voracious land use for voracious energy use. The study modeled the consequences of meeting 1.5°C warming pathways with BECCS and forest expansion to meet our CO2 removal needs, and it contrasted that with using direct air capture instead. With things like BECCS allowed to take over cropland, the researchres simulated pretty extreme increases in staple crop prices, particularly in the Global South.
Direct air capture doesn’t contribute to that problem, but water use in the two scenarios is actually similar. And the heat required in the DAC process—provided by natural gas with capture of the emitted CO2 in some pilots—could be equivalent to two-thirds of current natural gas production or more.
But even with the current state of this young technology, the economic model shows that DAC could play a substantial role, removing enough CO2 by 2035 to equal 7 percent of current-day emissions, if we’re willing to go that route.
The authors of this study emphasize a take-away message that applies to all three: “These results highlight that delays in aggressive global mitigation action greatly increase the requirement for DAC to meet climate targets, and correspondingly, energy and water impacts.” The sooner we start reducing our emissions, the less of a need there will be for these carbon-removal techniques, allowing us to minimize the scale of the trade-offs they come with.
The combustion engine is, hands down, one of the most important inventions of all time. But, it comes with a very high cost to the environment - hazardous emissions.
While many leaps in efficiency and emission control have been made over the decades, we can never fully eliminate the release of emissions like carbon dioxide into the air. But, what if the fuel for these engines could be grown rather than dug up?
Biofuels, as the name might suggest, are types of liquid and gas fuels created "naturally" through the conversion of some kind of biomass. While the term can be used to encompass solid fuels, like wood, these are more commonly termed biomass rather than biofuel per se.
For this reason, biomass tends to be used to denote the raw material that biofuels are derived from or those solid fuels that are created by thermally or chemically altering raw materials into things like torrefied pellets or briquettes.
Various forms of biofuels exist but are by far the most commonly used today are ethanol (sometimes called bioethanol) and biodiesel.
The former is an alcohol and is usually blended with more conventional fuels, like gasoline, to increase octane and cut down on the toxic carbon monoxide and smog-causing emissions usually associated with combustion engines. The most common form of the blend, called E10, is a mixture of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline.
Some more modern vehicles, called flexible-fuel vehicles, can actually run on another blend of ethanol and gasoline called E85 that contains between 51 percent and 83 percent ethanol. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, roughly 98% of all gasoline you put in your car will contain some percentage of ethanol.
Most ethanol for fuel use is made from plant starches and sugars but there are an increasing number of biofuels in development that use cellulose and hemicellulose. These are the non-edible fibrous material that constitutes the bulk of plant matter. To date, several commercial-scale cellulose-based ethanol biorefineries are currently operational in the United States.
The most common plant "feedstock" used to make ethanol, are corn, grain, and sugar cane.
As with alcohol production, as for your favorite beer or wine, bioethanol is created through the age-old process of fermentation. As with alcoholic beverages, microorganisms like bacteria and yeast use plant sugars as an energy source and produce ethanol as a waste product.
This ethanol can then be fractionated off, distilled, and concentrated ready for use as a liquid fuel. All is well and good, but blending with ethanol does come at a cost.
As the U.S. Department of Energy explains, "ethanol contains less energy per gallon than gasoline, to varying degrees, depending on the volume percentage of ethanol in the blend. Denatured ethanol (98% ethanol) contains about 30% less energy than gasoline per gallon. Ethanol’s impact on fuel economy is dependent on the ethanol content in the fuel and whether an engine is optimized to run on gasoline or ethanol."
Biodiesel, the other most common biofuel, is made from vegetable and animal fats and is generally considered a cleaner-burning direct replacement for petroleum-based diesel fuel. It is non-toxic, biodegradable, and is produced using a combination of alcohol and vegetable oil, animal fat, or recycled cooking grease. It is a mono-alkyl ester produced by the process of transesterification, where the feedstock reacts with an alcohol (such as methanol) in the presence of a catalyst, to produce biodiesel and glycerin.
Like ethanol, biodiesel can be blended with regular diesel to make cleaner fuels. Such fuels range from pure biodiesel, called B100, with the most common blend, B20, consisting of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent fossil-fuel diesel.
Just like ethanol, biodiesel is not without its own problems when compared to more traditional fuels. For example, it can be problematic in colder climates as it has a tendency to crystallize. Generally speaking, the less biodiesel content, the better the performance of the fuel in cold climates.
This issue can also be overcome by adding something called a "flow improver" that can be added to the fuel to prevent it from freezing.
Another form of biodiesel that is also quite popular is "green diesel", or renewable diesel. Formed by the hydrocracking of vegetable oils or animal fats (or through gasification, pyrolysis, or other biochemical and thermochemical technologies) to produce a product that is almost indistinguishable from conventional diesel.
Vegetable oil can also be used unmodified as a fuel source in some older diesel engines that don't have common fuel injection systems.
Other forms of biofuel also exist, including biogas or biomethane that are created through the process of anaerobic digestion (basically rotting) of organic material. "Syngas," another form of biofuel gas is created by mixing carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and other hydrocarbons through the partial combustion of biomass.
Worldwide biofuel production reached in excess of 43 billion gallons (161 billion liters) in 2021, constituting around 4% of all the world's fuel used for road transportation. This is hoped by some organizations, like the International Energy Agency, to increase to 25% by 2050.
Why are biofuels considered green?
In order to fully answer this question, we need to take a little trip back in time. Around the turn of the 21st-century, many governments around the world were scratching their heads trying to figure out ways to combat the amount of carbon emissions their countries were emitting.
One of the main polluting activities happened to be the cars and trucks used to ferry people and stuff around. In fact, this is one of the largest contributing factors to human global carbon dioxide emissions that, according to some sources, account for almost a quarter of all annual emissions around the world.
The transport sector is also one of the fastest-growing around the world, as a result of the growing use of personal cars in many countries around the world. Of these, the vast majority are still combustion-engine vehicles rather than "cleaner" solutions like the growing electrical vehicle market.
Something, in their view, needed to be done about this and so the concept of biofuels was proposed as a potential "silver bullet".
Since biofuels are formed, primarily, from the growth and harvesting of living plant material rather than long-sequestered hydrocarbon sources like fossil fuels. The main argument is that biofuels draw down as much carbon dioxide, more or less, as they release when combusted. This is because carbon is stored in the plant tissue and soil as plants grow.
They are, in effect, "carbon neutral", and in some cases have been shown to be carbon negative - in other words, they remove more carbon from the atmosphere than is released when they are harvested, processed, and burned/converted.
There are other benefits to biofuel feedstocks too, including, but not limited to, the generation of co-products like protein that can be as animal feed. This saves energy (and therefore associated carbon dioxide emissions) that would otherwise have been used to make animal feed by other means.
To this end, some countries went full-bore with the idea, with countries like Brazil establishing a full-blown bioethanol industry about 40 years ago. Other countries began to follow suit. In 2005, the United States established its first national renewable fuel standard under the "Energy Policy Act". This piece of legislation called for 7.5 billion gallons of biofuels to be used annually by 2012.
This act also required fossil fuel-producing companies to mix biofuels with regular liquid fuels to reduce their long-term impact on the environment. The European Union produced a similar requirement in its 2008 "Renewable Energy Directive", which required EU countries to source at least 10 percent of their transport fuel from renewable sources by 2020.
The stringent requirement has resulted in a huge growth in the biofuel industry around the world. But, how accurate are the claims that biofuels are better for the environment than, say, fossil fuels?
Are biofuels actually better for the environment?
Like anything in life, it is important to remember that there is no such thing as a perfect solution, only a compromise. For all the benefits that products like biofuels yield, they have some very important drawbacks and even environmental impacts that cannot be ignored if we are being truly honest about them.
For example, the widely held claim that biofuels are carbon-neutral, or even negative, is not all that it claims to be. Various studies on this subject have shown that different biofuels vary widely in their greenhouse emissions when compared, like-for-like, with gasoline.
Biofuel feedstocks have many other associated costs with their production, such as harvesting, processing, and transportation that are often not always factored into calculations or are outright ignored. In some cases, depending on the methods used to produce the feedstock and process the fuel, more greenhouse gas emissions can arise when compared to fossil fuels.
Discussion on this topic tends to place the most emphasis on carbon dioxide, but it is but one of the many harmful emissions that can have very serious consequences on the environment. Nitrous oxide, NOx for short, is another.
Not only is NOx an important component for the formation of harmful effects like acid rain, but it also has a very significant so-called "global warming potential" orders of magnitude higher than carbon dioxide - around 300 times in fact. Not only that, but nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for far longer - 114 years compared to about 4 years for carbon dioxide.
NOx also happens to be particularly bad for the ozone layer too - which is not nice. And it doesn't end there.
Nitrous oxides are generated at others stages of biofuel production and final use when combusted as an actual fuel on your car.
In fairness, all forms of agriculture release nitrous oxide to some degree, so biofuel production should not be blamed in isolation for any increase in NOx emissions over the last few decades, but since it is promoted heavily by many governments, there is an urgent need for more research to be done on the impact of biofuels on NOx emissions.
Another potentially important difference between biofuels and conventional fossil fuels is carbonyl emissions. Carbonyl is a divalent chemical unit consisting of carbon (C) and an oxygen (O) atom connected by a double bond and is a constituent part of molecules like carboxylic acids, esters, anhydrides, acyl halides, amides, and quinones, among other compounds.
Some carbonyls, like those listed above, are known to be potentially very hazardous to human health. Studies on this subject have found that biofuels, like biodiesels, release considerably more carbonyl emissions like formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, acetone, propionaldehyde, and butyraldehyde, than pure diesel.
Yet other studies have revealed that the combustion of biofuels also comes with an elevated emission of some other hazardous pollutants like volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic HCs, and heavy metals) have been reported to endanger human health.
Another very serious issue with biofuels is their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions from land-use changes. For example, land clearance of forests or grasslands to release land for biofuel production has a very serious impact on the environment.
Some studies have shown that this kind of activity can release hundreds to thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare for the sake of "saving" 1.8 tonnes per hectare per year for maize grown for bioethanol or 8.6 tonnes per hectare per year for switchgrass. The land is also converted from growing food for consumption to biomass for use in fuel.
This has been reinforced only recently, with a study on the use of corn-ethanol fuels in the U.S. This study identified that the rise in demand for corn as a feedstock for biofuels resulted in a jump in price and, therefore, incentivize the conversion of land for the cultivation of corn.
Other studies also show a serious "opportunity cost" for using valuable land in this way too. If governments are serious about reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the land, if converted from the forest, for example, should have been left the way it was. A better strategy might be to actually reforest existing farmland that has been converted for biofuel production as well.
The conversion of wild virgin lands for biofuel production also has serious implications for biodiversity and local habitats too for obvious reasons. Research also suggests that the production of biofuel feedstocks such as corn and soy, could increase water pollution from nutrients, pesticides, and sediment and deplete aquifers.
There is another area where biofuels appear to be considerably safer for the environment, however - biodegradation. Various studies have shown that biofuels, neat vegetable oils, biodiesel, petroleum diesel blends, and neat 2-D diesel fuel tend to break down in the environment much faster than conventional petrol or diesel.
Under controlled conditions, these substances are broken down about 5 times faster than petroleum or diesel and also leave far fewer toxic byproducts. This is encouraging and would indicate that events such as oil spills could be less of an environmental disaster if the tanker is filled with biofuels.
So, are biofuels all they are cracked up to be? In short, yes, but also no. While some biofuels are clearly better for the environment than continuing to dig up and burn fossil fuels, a more all-encompassing view needs to be taken by regulators and decision-makers. Not all biofuels and methods of biofuel production have the same impact
We have already covered some of the issues above, like focussing on reforestation instead, but other things can also be done, too.
Energy conservation and improved efficiency are critical factors. The combustion engine, while receiving a lot of bad press over recent decades, is still one of the best machines for converting fuel to do useful work that our species has ever devised.
It has quite literally revolutionized our way of life. If more focus was put on improving their efficiency than outright banning them, significant improvements in emissions could be made over time.
According to some studies, in the United States, an improvement in efficiency by only one mile per gallon for every vehicle has been shown to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more than all "savings" provided by all biofuel maize production. Other incremental improvements are also in development that could further improve the efficiency of combustion engines too.
One example, called Transient Plasma Ignition, is a like-for-like replacement for traditional spark plugs that have been shown to dramatically increase combustion efficiency in combustion engines by as much as 20%. These kinds of spark plugs also benefit from a longer lifespan than conventional ones.
But, such solutions still rely on the digging up and use of fossil fuels. With the drive, pun intended, for the decarbonization of many economies around the world, such technologies only realistically offer a brief reprieve for the internal combustion engine going forward.
But, that doesn't mean research and development in this field should be eased up. Any benefits made to the efficiency of internal combustion can be used to also, albeit indirectly, increase the efficiency of biofuels in combustion engines.
But, there are some areas where biofuels are clearly advantageous. In many cases, biowaste from other industrial processes can be turned into biofuels rather than thrown away. Whether it be digestion of waste food to make biogas/bio-LPG or turning waste products from beer production into biofuel.
And it is this that might, in the end, might be the main benefit of biofuels over their conventional fossil fuel alternatives. If more emphasis is put on using the waste products from existing processes to make biofuels rather than converting virgin land or agricultural land for feedstock crops, we can get all the benefits of biofuels with less of its environmental costs.
That is, of course, as long as our species continues to use combustion-based energy production. Which is likely going to continue for many years to come.
They are, after all, so good at what they do.
Friday, February 23, 2024
ALTERNATE FUELS
WinGD and Mitsubishi Shipbuilding Agree Ammonia Fuel Supply System Design
WinGD is developing a range of ammonia-fueled engines and reports it has finalzied a fuel system supply design with Mitsubishi (WinGD file phot)
Engine manufacturer WinGD and Mitsubishi Shipbuilding report they have reached a key milestone in the development of ammonia-fueled propulsion. The two companies have finalized the basic design for an ammonia fuel supply system for an ammonia-fueled large, low-speed two-stroke marine engine.
Mitsubishi Shipbuilding and WinGD concluded a Memorandum of Understanding in June 2023 to undertake technical studies on an ammonia fuel supply system. Under the partnership, WinGD is working to develop X?DF?A engines at appropriate sizes for a range of vessel designs, providing the shipbuilder with the specifications for installing the engines and the requirements for all auxiliary fuel systems. Mitsubishi is designing the vessels, setting performance parameters for the engines, and further developing its existing ammonia fuel supply system (AFSS) for use with WinGD’s ammonia engines.
The AFSS design is the first result of the wide-ranging partnership focusing on developing solutions for ammonia engines and fuel systems that can be applied across a range of vessel designs. Because ammonia emits no CO2 when combusted it is viewed as a leading alternative marine fuel as well as for heavy industry, but it also presents challenges to achieve and maintain steady combustion as well as the highly toxic and corrosive nature of ammonia.
As well as the fuel supply system - including a fuel valve unit, fuel conditioning, and all related piping – the companies report their concept includes several features to enable the safe use of ammonia as a marine fuel. These include an ammonia catching system as well as purging and venting arrangements.
“At present, our primary focus is on advancing the technology of our clean-fuel solutions including our ammonia-powered X?DF?A engines, with the first delivery expected in Q2 2025,” said Sebastian Hensel, Director R&D at WinGD. “This collaboration will make sure that the auxiliary systems and integration capability are in place to apply our engine designs, and developing the fuel supply system concept is a crucial step in bringing ammonia fuel capability to the marine market.”
The project will now proceed to the detailed design phase, ensuring that ammonia capability is available to ocean going vessel operators ahead of regulatory requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In September 2023, WinGD reported that it had received approval in principle for the first of its ammonia two-stroke engines from Lloyd’s Register, the first ever awarded for two-stroke engines fueled with ammonia. They reported the engines will operate according to the Diesel principle in both diesel and ammonia modes, and Win has already recorded the first future delivery orders for ammonia-ready vessels.
Vitol Introduces Dedicated Biofuel Bunker Barge in Singapore to Meet Demand
Marine Future is the first bunker barge able to deliver 100 percent bio-component fuels (Vitol)
Asia’s market for biofuels is expanding rapidly and to take advantage of the emerging opportunities, Vitol, one of Singapore’s leading fuel suppliers has taken delivery of its first specialized bunker vessel. The company looks to take advantage of the emerging opportunity and last fall reported the first vessel would be the first of several specialized bunker barges placed into service.
“Though at a nascent stage, demand for biofuel is expected to grow significantly in the coming years, as the shipping industry looks at ways to decarbonize and curb emissions,” says Vitol. They point to the International Maritime Organization’s interim regulations released last October as another factor likely in the near term to spur growth in biofuels.
“Biofuels are a key pathway for the hard-to-abate shipping sector to mitigate emissions,” the company notes.
As a result, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore which controls the bunker market, reported that last year sales of biofuel increased by nearly four times. They reported biofuel sales in Singapore reached 520,000 tons in 2023 up from just 140,000 tons in 20222.
Vitol recently introduced the Marine Future, a nearly 335-foot (102-meter) bunker vessel in Singapore. The vessel was specifically designed for the biofuel sector and built in China. It has the capacity to carry about 7,000 MT of biofuels and in the future can also be re-configured to supply methanol.
It is the first bunker tanker in Singapore to have the appropriate design and designation to deliver 100 percent bio-component fuels. The previous vessels in the market are all oil tankers, and Vitol points out that regulations restrict them to a maximum of 25 percent biofuel component in biofuel blends.
Through its V-Bunkers operation, the company already operates more than 20 bunker barges based in Singapore. They anticipate the new vessel will contribute to the continuing rapid growth in biofuel sales. Starting with the Marine Future, Vitol can offer a range of biofuel blends.
Saturday, February 24, 2024
Singapore Selects 11 Designs in Effort to Promote Electric Harbor Crafts
One of the 11 designs selected in Singapore's program to promote electric harbor crafts (MPA)
Singapore’s Maritime and Port Authority has selected 11 design proposals as part of its ongoing competition to develop advanced electric harbor crafts. The authority reports it received strong interest in the effort designed to promote the adoption of fully electric harbor craft demonstrating the strong interest and confidence of the industry in the development of this new generation of vessels.
The initiative launched in July 2023 as part of the efforts to advance decarbonization in one of the busiest ports in the world and at the same time promote the adoption of electrification as a means of addressing the challenges. The MPA reports it received a total of 55 proposals from 32 international and local companies and consortia.
Participants submitted technically strong designs according to the MPA, including the use of optimized aluminum hull form, high energy density batteries with active liquid cooling, and battery thermal detection and protection system, among others.
One of the key concerns that they also sought to address is the total cost of ownership for electric vessels with the goal of making them comparable to a conventional harbor craft. Participants in the program demonstrated that while electric harbor crafts currently have higher upfront capital costs due primarily to the higher cost of the batteries and associated systems, the MPA says these costs can be mitigated by energy cost savings from operating the more energy-efficient e-harbor crafts, reduced maintenance cost, and operational downtime.
Several of the participants also proposed business models to optimize the harbor craft resource at the sector level while lowering the overall total cost of ownership to individual companies. According to the MPA, these proposals aim to encourage more companies, especially those with smaller fleet sizes, to make the transition, by presenting viable business cases based on aggregation, while enabling an efficient and responsive sector-level capability to meet the needs of ships calling into Singapore.
The panel completed the evaluation of all the proposals and the MPA has shortlisted a total of 11 passenger launch and cargo lighter vessel designs submitted by seven companies and consortia. Of the 11 designs selected, six have received class society approvals. Together with various research institutes and academia, the MPA looks to support more research to enhance vessel designs, safety, and cybersecurity, and reduce the energy requirements.
Six designs were submitted by the Coastal Sustainability Alliance, marinEV, and Pyxis Maritime, which demonstrate a strong understanding of Singapore’s requirements in areas including battery specifications, digital and cyber systems, training requirements, and development of local capability. These participants will be working directly with MPA and its researchers over the next two to six months to optimize and validate their designs.
The five additional proposals selected were submitted by CAEV+ Consortium, China Everbright Environment Group, Cyan Renewables Consortium, and Gennal Engineering. MPA reports it will also work with these participants, together with the various researchers and universities, to further develop the designs. The scope of enhancements will include optimization of the vessel hull and electrical systems design, the design of a fire-resilient battery room, and a cyber health monitoring system, to strengthen the vessels’ energy efficiency and safety.
Vitol Introduces Dedicated Biofuel Bunker Barge in Singapore to Meet Demand
Marine Future is the first bunker barge able to deliver 100 percent bio-component fuels (Vitol)
Asia’s market for biofuels is expanding rapidly and to take advantage of the emerging opportunities, Vitol, one of Singapore’s leading fuel suppliers has taken delivery of its first specialized bunker vessel. The company looks to take advantage of the emerging opportunity and last fall reported the first vessel would be the first of several specialized bunker barges placed into service.
“Though at a nascent stage, demand for biofuel is expected to grow significantly in the coming years, as the shipping industry looks at ways to decarbonize and curb emissions,” says Vitol. They point to the International Maritime Organization’s interim regulations released last October as another factor likely in the near term to spur growth in biofuels.
“Biofuels are a key pathway for the hard-to-abate shipping sector to mitigate emissions,” the company notes.
As a result, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore which controls the bunker market, reported that last year sales of biofuel increased by nearly four times. They reported biofuel sales in Singapore reached 520,000 tons in 2023 up from just 140,000 tons in 20222.
Vitol recently introduced the Marine Future, a nearly 335-foot (102-meter) bunker vessel in Singapore. The vessel was specifically designed for the biofuel sector and built in China. It has the capacity to carry about 7,000 MT of biofuels and in the future can also be re-configured to supply methanol.
It is the first bunker tanker in Singapore to have the appropriate design and designation to deliver 100 percent bio-component fuels. The previous vessels in the market are all oil tankers, and Vitol points out that regulations restrict them to a maximum of 25 percent biofuel component in biofuel blends.
Through its V-Bunkers operation, the company already operates more than 20 bunker barges based in Singapore. They anticipate the new vessel will contribute to the continuing rapid growth in biofuel sales. Starting with the Marine Future, Vitol can offer a range of biofuel blends.
Thursday, April 16, 2020
Coronavirus spurs new clash between Big Oil and Big Corn over U.S. biofuels Stephanie Kelly
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A fuel demand meltdown caused by the coronavirus outbreak in the United States has started up a new fight between the oil and agriculture industries over the nation’s biofuel policy, this time over whether the policy should be suspended or expanded as a result of the crisis.
The issue once again places Republican President Donald Trump in a tough spot between two important constituencies, both of which have been pushed to the brink of collapse by the pandemic because of flagging consumption, disrupted supply chains and reduced workforces.
The oil refining industry and its backers have asked the Trump administration to help the industry weather the pandemic by suspending a regulatory requirement that they blend billions of gallons of corn-based ethanol into their gasoline each year, arguing it is a cost many facilities can not currently afford.
The corn lobby, meanwhile, has been pushing for the blending requirements, mandated under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, to be expanded to help farmers who have seen demand for their crop drop swiftly as biofuel plants across the country go idle.
While the refining and corn industries have clashed for years over the biofuel blending requirements, the issue is now being framed as a matter of survival.
“We’re talking about a multi-billion dollar compliance cost that is going to impact whether some can continue operating the same way,” said Geoff Moody, senior director of government relations for the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers trade group, which represents refiners.
On Wednesday, the governors of Texas, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming asked the Trump administration for a nationwide waiver exempting the oil-refining industry from the blending laws to help it survive, adding heft to a similar request made by Louisiana the week before.
Biofuel and farm groups slammed the idea.
“We remind the Administration that oil refiners are not the only ones suffering from the economic fallout of the current situation,” said Brian Jennings, the head of the American Coalition for Ethanol, which had asked the administration earlier this month to expand ethanol blending requirements.
“Ethanol producers, and the farmers supplying them corn, are suffering a proportional economic disaster,” he said.
A spokesperson for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in charge of overseeing the RFS, said the agency is watching the situation closely and “will make the appropriate determination at the appropriate time.”
DEMAND MELTDOWN
U.S. demand for gasoline has fallen by about a third due to the coronavirus pandemic, which has roiled daily life and prompted residents to shelter at home, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
As a result, refiners have slashed output and seen gasoline profit margins fall to the lowest since 2008. [EIA/S]
While many refiners were in strong cash positions at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, others that have spent much of their cash acquiring new plants, such as PBF Energy Inc (PBF.N), are significantly more distressed.
Valero Energy Corp (VLO.N), one of the biggest refining companies in the United States, meanwhile, warned of an up to $2.1 billion first quarter loss due to the coronavirus pandemic, and plans to defer tax payments and certain planned expenses in its refining and ethanol businesses.
Top refiner Marathon Petroleum Corp , meanwhile, has idled a plant in New Mexico due to falling demand.
But the ethanol industry is being crushed too.
Nearly half of U.S. ethanol production capacity has been idled as a result of the falling fuel demand, according to Geoff Cooper, the head of the Renewable Fuels Association. Further, output cuts disrupt local demand for corn as producers buy less of the feedstock.
“A general waiver at this point would only serve to close more ethanol plants and kill more jobs across rural America,” Cooper said.
The refining and corn industries have long disagreed about U.S. biofuel policy, most recently clashing over the Trump administration’s use of exemptions for small refining facilities in financial distress.
A federal court in January ruled that Trump’s EPA had granted such exemptions inappropriately, a decision that is likely to dramatically reduce the number of such waivers issued in the future.
Tuesday, March 02, 2021
USC study shows promising potential for marine biofuel
IMAGE: DIVER ATTACHES KELP TO AN EARLY PROTOTYPE OF THE KELP ELEVATOR. view more
CREDIT: MAURICE ROPER
For several years now, the biofuels that power cars, jet airplanes, ships and big trucks have come primarily from corn and other mass-produced farm crops. Researchers at USC, though, have looked to the ocean for what could be an even better biofuel crop: seaweed.
Scientists at the USC Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies on Santa Catalina Island, working with private industry, report that a new aquaculture technique on the California coast dramatically increases kelp growth, yielding four times more biomass than natural processes. The technique employs a contraption called the "kelp elevator" that optimizes growth for the bronze-colored floating algae by raising and lowering it to different depths.
The team's newly published findings suggest it may be possible to use the open ocean to grow kelp crops for low-carbon biofuel similar to how land is used to harvest fuel feedstocks such as corn and sugarcane -- and with potentially fewer adverse environmental impacts.
The National Research Council has indicated that generating biofuels from feedstocks like corn and soybeans can increase water pollution. Farmers use pesticides and fertilizers on the crops that can end up polluting streams, rivers and lakes. Despite those well-evidenced drawbacks, 7% of the nation's transportation fuel still comes from major food crops. And nearly all of it is corn-based ethanol.
"Forging new pathways to make biofuel requires proving that new methods and feedstocks work. This experiment on the Southern California coast is an important step because it demonstrates kelp can be managed to maximize growth," said Diane Young Kim, corresponding author of the study, associate director of special projects at the USC Wrigley Institute and a professor of environmental studies at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
The study was published on Feb. 19 in the journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. The authors include researchers from USC Dornsife, which is home to the Wrigley Institute, and the La Cañada, California-based company Marine BioEnergy, Inc., which designed and built the experimental system for the study and is currently designing the technology for open-ocean kelp farms.
Though not without obstacles, kelp shows serious promise as biofuel crop
Government and industry see promise in a new generation of climate-friendly biofuels to reduce net carbon dioxide emissions and dependence on foreign oil. New biofuels could either supplement or replace gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and natural gas.
If it lives up to its potential, kelp is a more attractive option than the usual biofuel crops -- corn, canola, soybeans and switchgrass -- for two very important reasons. For one, ocean crops do not compete for fresh water, agricultural land or artificial fertilizers. And secondly, ocean farming does not threaten important habitats when marginal land is brought into cultivation.
The scientists focused on giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera, the seaweed that forms majestic underwater forests along the California coast and elsewhere and washes onto beaches in dense mats. Kelp is one of nature's fastest-growing plants and its life cycle is well understood, making it amenable to cultivation.
But farming kelp requires overcoming a few obstacles. To thrive, kelp has to be anchored to a substrate and only grows in sun-soaked waters to about 60 feet deep. But in open oceans, the sunlit surface layer lacks nutrients available in deeper water.
To maximize growth in this ecosystem, the scientists had to figure out how to give kelp a foothold to hang onto, lots of sunlight and access to abundant nutrients. And they had to see if kelp could survive deeper below the surface. So, Marine BioEnergy invented the concept of depth-cycling the kelp, and USC Wrigley scientists conducted the biological and oceanographic trial.
The kelp elevator consists of fiberglass tubes and stainless-steel cables that support the kelp in the open ocean. Juvenile kelp is affixed to a horizontal beam, and the entire structure is raised and lowered in the water column using an automated winch.
Beginning in 2019, research divers collected kelp from the wild, affixed it to the kelp elevator and then deployed it off the northwest shore of Catalina Island, near Wrigley's marine field station. Every day for about 100 days, the elevator would raise the kelp to near the surface during the day so it could soak up sunlight, then lower it to about 260 feet at night so it could absorb nitrate and phosphate in the deeper water. Meantime, the researchers continually checked water conditions and temperature while comparing their kelp to control groups raised in natural conditions.
"We found that depth-cycled kelp grew much faster than the control group of kelp, producing four times the biomass production," Kim said.
CAPTION
A USC Wrigley Institute study finds that raising and lowering kelp boosts its growth four-fold. It's the next step toward growing it in the open ocean on giant "kelp elevators" to produce biofuel at commercial scale.
CREDIT
Letty Avila
The push to develop a new generation of biofuels
Prior to the experiment, it was unclear whether kelp could effectively absorb the nutrients in the deep, cold and dark environment. Nitrate is a big limiting factor for plants and algae, but the study suggests that the kelp found all it needed to thrive when lowered into deep water at night. Equally important, the kelp was able to withstand the greater underwater pressure.
Brian Wilcox, co-founder and chief engineer of Marine BioEnergy, said: "The good news is the farm system can be assembled from off-the-shelf products without new technology. Once implemented, depth-cycling farms could lead to a new way to produce affordable, carbon-neutral fuel year-round."
Cindy Wilcox, co-founder and president of Marine BioEnergy, estimates that it would take a Utah-sized patch of ocean to make enough kelp biofuel to replace 10% of the liquid petroleum consumed annually in the United States. One Utah would take up only 0.13% of the total Pacific Ocean.
Developing a new generation of biofuels has been a priority for California and the federal government. The U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy invested $22 million in efforts to increase marine feedstocks for biofuel production, including $2 million to conduct the kelp elevator study. The Department of Energy has a study to locate a billion tons of feedstock per year for biofuels; Cindy Wilcox of Marine BioEnergy said the ocean between California, Hawaii and Alaska could contribute to that goal, helping make the U.S. a leader in this new energy technology.
###
The study authors include Ignacio A. Navarrete, Diane Kim, David W. Ginsburg, Jessica M. Dutton, John Heidelberg and Yubin Raut of the USC Wrigley Institute; Cindy Wilcox and Brian Howard Wilcox of Marine BioEnergy; and Daniel C. Reed at the Marine Science Institute at UC Santa Barbara.
The research was supported by ARPA-E, U.S. Department of Energy Award Number DE-AR0000689 and by Marine BioEnergy, Inc., which has a commercial interest in the research and contributed part of its $2.6 million federal grant to cover the cost of the USC Wrigley Institute study.
