Ammonia has ‘high potential’ as a future marine fuel, says Berlin-based NABU – but its development risks being stunted by watered-down regulation that favours biofuels, the NGO’s Head of Transport Policy, Daniel Rieger warns, says an article published on bunkerspot website.
Why did NABU opt to focus on ammonia?
At the beginning of the year, Berlin-based NABU commissioned the German Öko-Institut to investigate the extent to which ammonia can play a role as a green fuel of the future. Last month, the environmental group published its findings, concluding that the fuel has ‘high potential for climate protection if nitrous oxide generated during the combustion is eliminated’. But with a range of alternatives to fossil-based marine fuels starting to blossom.
‘We always had the feeling that, if you just consider the CO2 emissions, it looks pretty good,’ explains NABU’s Head of Transport Policy, Daniel Rieger. ‘It offers a lot of benefits compared to other synthetic fuels like hydrogen or synthetic diesel.’
Biggest concern
Perhaps the biggest concern surrounding ammonia as a marine fuel relates to its toxicity. Last year, class society ABS outlined some of the key safety considerations in its Ammonia as a Marine Fuel Whitepaper, while in April, a group of industry heavyweights, including Lloyd’s Register’s Maritime Decarbonisation Hub and the Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping, formed a new project aimed at developing guidance on the safe use of ammonia as bunker fuel. But in any case, Rieger says that ammonia is no worse than heavy fuel oil.
‘We compared ammonia to heavy fuel oil and you can say that it is as toxic but, given a certain timeline, ammonia vanished in a couple of days or hours, and then it’s basically gone, whereas with HFO, this stuff is sticky and the residues will definitely be there over years and decades. It is this persistence that makes the toxicity of HFO higher than ammonia.’
‘This is something that we believe can be handled relatively easily once you come up with a strong regulatory scheme,’ says Rieger. ‘Somebody will definitely look into it and figure out a way of how to handle it technically and have a market for it and sell those engines and exhaust gas aftertreatment systems.’
Another important concern
In addition to its toxicity and NOx, there is another important point to consider – and it is no laughing matter.
‘When you simply look at CO2 emissions [ammonia] is a good option, there are no CO2 emissions, but you also get a problem with N20, or “laughing gas”,’ says Rieger. ‘It’s very greenhouse-intensive.’
Rieger compares the potential impact of N20 emissions from ammonia with that of LNG and methane slip.
‘Even small amounts of those [methane slip] gases, they have such a global warming potential that the overall GHG balance could end up pretty bad…and the same is true for ammonia; you simply can’t say that’s it’s a “good thing, go for it” when you look at the GHG balance.’
NABU conclusion
NABU concluded that for ammonia to become a viable future marine fuel then there would need to be a way to eliminate such N20 emissions – and that currently, there is a knowledge gap which needs to be addressed before it can throw its full weight behind the fuel.
‘It’s good that you’ve come up with that point,’ says Rieger, ‘One key result was also that it wouldn’t be a stranded asset to invest in ammonia infrastructure because you’ll need it anyway, even if it was for other sectors. We need e-ammonia in the future, and it could also serve as a transport medium for hydrogen. So, we’ll definitely need to figure out ways how to transport all the green hydrogen around the world to Europe. Therefore, this ammonia infrastructure will clearly serve a purpose in the future – and it won’t be a stranded asset as is the case for LNG.’
As such, NABU is in favour of, and arguing for, stronger regulation which it believes in the long run will accelerate the market for carbon neutral marine fuels and propulsion solutions.
It would also shift the focus away from other so-called transition fuels such as LNG and biofuels, whose use, under the European Commission’s FuelEU Maritime proposal, could potentially be mandated if other viable alternative fuels are not available.
Summary
- Ammonia has ‘high potential’ as a future marine fuel, says Berlin-based NABU – but its development risks being stunted by watered-down regulation that favours biofuels.
- The biggest concern surrounding ammonia as a marine fuel relates to its toxicity.
- In addition to its toxicity and NOx, there is another important point to consider – and it is no laughing matter.
- NABU is in favour of, and arguing for, stronger regulation which it believes in the long run will accelerate the market for carbon neutral marine fuels and propulsion solutions.
Did you subscribe to our daily newsletter?
It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe!
Source: bunkerspot.com
