London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/cleantechnica.com/2023/03/06/atlantic-crossing-by-methanol-powered-ship-is-neither-viable-nor-carbon-neutral/amp/
A very eye opening article on Methanol
The methanol industry likes to assert that manufacturing methanol is relatively low carbon, at 20 grams CO2e per MJ or 400 grams CO2e per kg, but independent modern assessments put it at 110 grams CO2e per MJ and about 1.4 kg CO2e per kg methanol. So that’s problem one with methanol as a shipping fuel,
The energy density by mass is lower as well, with about 45% of the energy density of diesel. So when you burn it, you have to burn over twice as much to get the same energy. And that means that burning it results in virtually the same CO2 as diesel, about 97%. Doesn’t seem so good after all, does it?
Maersk is big on green methanol as well. The company has bought several dual-fuel ships which could burn green methanol if they could source it in sufficient volumes, and signed several sourcing agreements with firms promising to build green methanol capacity. When I assessed their initial announcements in 2021, I put the increased fuel costs at four times that of diesel. At the time, they’d committed to purchase green methanol sufficient for half of one journey for one of the eight ships once a year, well under 1% of the annual fuel requirement.
The only sensible way to use Methanol is to buy certified green Methanol (zero carbon) and put it through Fuel Cells so that the efficiency is way higher, making up a lot of the difference in fuel volume.
Ammonia is the better option over Methanol and will win out between the two.
Ammonia is a solution until someone makes a hazard analysis for usage on a ship.
1. No one can make a ship so safe that ammonia can not come out of pipes, reservoirs….
2. Ammonia is a high corrosive medium… I’m not sure how the motor, tanks, pipings and pumps needed to be build for usage of ammonia.
So the question is how much money and material you have to put on a ship to make ammonia usage safe and how much material you still can transport with such a ship. If you make a mistake in design, you loose the whole crew and you just can hope that the accident is not happening in a port.
And with methanol is a similar question, if you have a low energy density, you have to have a bigger volume of tanks for the same trip. So the question is, does it make sense to build a bigger ship for les capacity?
The hazard’s are smaller, but still if such ship starts to burn, you have a big problem.
When you ask me, I would say a synthetic fuel what is made like diesel from e hydrogen make sense. So better properties as now (like diesel), known technology, same or les dangers, all the ships do not need to be new…. And after all you still can make blends like MSAR or BioMSAR to use waste byproducts from other industry’s…. And make the fuel cheaper….
The problem with methanol, like Hydrogen, is that it can really best be thought of as a liquid battery and like a battery, it depends how it's charged as to how green it is.
Nejc,
There are no issues with Ammonia that are not already dealt with in the industries that currently use huge amounts of Ammonia, such as fertilizer and petrochemicals.
https://www.emsa.europa.eu/publications/item/4833-potential-of-ammonia-as-fuel-in-shipping.html
Haggis I have read the report and the risk is not jet under control, there are just written some hazards and some solutions with references on other industries.
From this industry (productions plants) I come as designer, so I know how to deal with in a Plant design or transport. But there are two many risks involved on a ship with the combination of personal, movement of ship, …. I know there is transport going on, but this is a special ship, with high skilled personal under controlled routes, ports….
I really do not see Amonia as a fuel on any ship. It would be to complex design, to high risk, to expensive…. So the industry will not implement it if they can produce synthetic diesel for comparable amount of energy and same sources.
Nejc
The first Ammonia ready ship was delivered over a year ago.
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/worlds-first-ammonia-ready-vessel-delivered/
Then there's this one:
https://www.rivieramm.com/news-content-hub/news-content-hub/mol-and-mitsui-win-aip-for-ammonia-powered-bulk-carrier-74739
There's a few others on the build too. VARD have a design for a Fuel Cell powered coaster that runs on cracked Ammonia.
MAN, Wastrila etc are redesigning engines to run on Ammonia or a blend including Ammonia.
So the designs are already out there.
However, Ammonia and Methanol are not going to displace MSAR and bioMSAR in container shipping for a couple of decades, due to the lack of global bunkering for those fuels.
I have seen this ships too when I started reading abbaut ammonia and shipping today.. but as I said, everything is possible on a paper, but between ammonia ready, ammonia usage and first accident there are big questions in the air… I still can not believe that ammonia as a fuel is so good that someone take the risk of accident in account… https://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/0084.pdf
"While adoption of green methanol or ammonia would result in emissions reductions of 81% and 83% respectively, Quadrise notes that around 50MW of renewable generation capacity would be required per vessel, which is equivalent to 70-80 wind turbines or solar panels covering an area of around 4km2. There would therefore need to be substantial investment in additional renewable generation capacity for widespread adoption across the global shipping fleet to be viable."
https://www.edisongroup.com/research/key-role-in-transitioning-to-net-zero/31706/
https://shipandbunker.com/news/world/930776-worlds-largest-shipping-firm-signs-five-year-partnership-deal-with-gcmd
This is why I thought MSC would use MSAR for freight and BioMSAR for cruise ships
In the time its taken to get this far for testing BioMsar first, we could have tested Msar and obtained a full LONO with or without a scrubber. With 1300 hrs behind it, they know there are no outlying problems with MSAR.
But they still like to burn that HFO despite the conferences,
Seminars and green rhetoric.
"Seminars and green rhetoric."
Vince,
you're spot on, just like COVID, the Ukraine mess, etc., some shady characters (in power) are manipulating the green rhetoric to their own benefit.
a.
Defo with you there OneAussie.