July 7, 2022. SEA-LNG has released a framework for comparing the emissions and cost implications of adopting future fuel pathways and urges the industry make like-for-like comparisons when discussing alternative marine fuels.
The industry is making newbuild investment decisions now that will impact greenhouse gas emissions today and for the next 25-30 years, the typical lifetime of a vessel. It is essential their assessments of alternative marine fuel pathways are made on a like-for-like, or “apples with apples” basis. Discussion of alternative fuels too often compares the green versions of ammonia and methanol with fossil, or grey, liquefied natural gas (LNG). The reality is that all fuels share a common pathway from fossil-based versions, produced from natural gas to hydrogen-based, synthetic fuels. These synthetic fuels will only become available as and when sufficient renewable electricity and electrolysis capacity comes online to produce them.
Decarbonization will not be a “big bang” process where the industry moves in a single step from fossil to zero-emission, renewable fuels. It is likely to take place incrementally as fuels are gradually decarbonized through the addition of low and zero-emission drop-ins.
Almost all alternative fuels today, including LNG, are fossil-based, in fact most are produced from natural gas. Natural gas, and sometimes coal, is also the feedstock for almost all methanol, ammonia and hydrogen production.
Uniquely, fossil LNG offers significant greenhouse gas emissions reduction when used as a marine fuel compared with VLSFO – up to 23% on a full lifecycle (Well-to-Wake) basis according to an independent study by Sphera. By contrast, the use of fossil methanol, ammonia and (liquid) hydrogen results in emissions far higher than those associated with VLSFO because of the large amounts of energy required for their production.
Emissions can be significantly reduced through the use of fuels derived from sustainable biomass. Bio-LNG is already commercially available in Europe as a marine bunker fuel today and has penetrated the heavy-duty vehicle road transportation sector in both Europe and North America. Biomethanol also exists in limited quantities, but mainly as an industrial chemical feedstock.
The ultimate, zero-emissions destination for all alternative fuels is for them to be synthesized from hydrogen produced from renewable electricity. Once this renewable hydrogen building block exists at scale it is possible to produce e-LNG, e-methanol, e-ammonia or e-hydrogen.
In summary, committing to solutions which rely on alternative fuels which will not be available at commercial scale in a renewable form for the foreseeable future, means owners locking in higher emissions and higher cost decarbonization pathways. LNG as a marine fuel delivers immediate GHG benefits and a lower risk, lower cost, incremental pathway to zero emissions.
Steve Esau, Chief Operating Officer, SEA-LNG said: “When looking at the advantages and disadvantages of alternative fuels, we should be assessing the characteristics of each fuel type on a like-for-like basis. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are a stock problem as well as a flow problem. The industry needs to consider the pathway to decarbonisation, not just the destination. Waiting is not an option.”
