A study commissioned by CMA CGM and conducted by IFPEN has examined the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of alternative marine fuels, specifically methanol and ammonia. The study aims to evaluate their potential for decarbonization and their ability to meet the requirements of IMO and European regulations, reports IFPEN.
Evaluation Of Alternative Fuels
This research thoroughly evaluates alternative marine fuels, emphasizing how differences in electricity sources, transportation distances, and regulatory environments influence their decarbonization capabilities.
The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analyzes 17 production regions, each with unique electricity grid intensities, transport distances to bunkering ports, and fuel conditioning needs. It also includes future-looking analyses for 2035 and 2050, considering global energy decarbonization and evolving regulations. This provides a strong, data-supported assessment of the decarbonization potential of methanol and ammonia-based fuels for maritime transport.
The study examines:
- Variations in local electricity grid composition, reflect the carbon intensity of national energy grids and their impact on fuel production emissions.
- Renewable electricity, using the RED methodology, which assumes zero emissions from renewable sources, in line with regulatory accounting practices.
- Complete cradle-to-grave (CTG) accounting, which includes emissions from renewable energy infrastructure, for a more comprehensive decarbonization evaluation.
- Carbon capture processes, including flue gas capture (from industrial sources) and Direct Air Capture (DAC), require more energy.
Key Findings
Key findings from the study on alternative marine fuels can be seen as follows:
E-Methanol:
- Powered by renewable energy, e-methanol achieves significant GHG reductions, with emissions decreasing from 16 ± 4 gCO₂eq/MJ in 2025 to 5 ± 1 gCO₂eq/MJ in 2050.
- When carbon capture is powered by natural gas, emissions are higher, but still meet the 70% reduction threshold for RFNBO compliance under RED from 2035 onwards.
- In container transportation, e-methanol offers a 60-80% reduction in WtW GHG emissions compared to VLSFO, but relies on biogenic CO₂ availability.
Bio-Methanol:
- Supply chain and gasification efficiency are critical factors.
- RED compliance is consistently met, achieving approximately 95% GHG reduction.
- Bio-methanol offers the highest reduction potential, with an 80% average reduction in WtW emissions compared to VLSFO, if sustainable biomass is used.
- Transporting the finished bio-methanol is better than transporting the raw biomass.
E-Ammonia:
- Powered by renewable electricity, e-ammonia meets the 70% reduction threshold for RFNBO compliance from 2025 onwards, with emissions decreasing from 17 ± 4 gCO₂eq/MJ in 2025 to 5 ± 1 gCO₂eq/MJ in 2050.
- In container transportation, e-ammonia achieves a 35-85% reduction compared to VLSFO, but is currently limited by engine efficiency, pilot fuel needs, and N₂O emissions.
- This technology is rapidly evolving, requiring further research and vessel design optimization.
Blue Ammonia:
- Blue ammonia fails to meet the 70% reduction threshold for LCF compliance under the Gas Directive in 2025 and 2035 due to methane and CO₂ emissions from natural gas.
- Even with optimistic scenarios, it only meets the 70% reduction threshold in 6 out of 17 regions by 2050.
- In container transportation, blue ammonia currently results in higher emissions than VLSFO, making it not a viable decarbonization option.
- Optimized blue hydrogen production could make it a transitional fuel, but that is expected to be widely available in 2050.
Did you subscribe to our daily Newsletter?
It’s Free Click here to Subscribe!
Source: IFPEN
