According to an article published in DNVGL, IMO’s strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shipping affects containerships ordered today.
What are the options to achieve the targets and prepare for future compliance?
They will spend most of their operating life in the years ensuing 2030. By that time the average CO2 intensity will have to be significantly reduced.
Addressing the GHG reduction ambitions
IMO’s strategy towards decarbonizing defines three levels of ambition, with two interim goals remaining: achieve a 40% reduction of the average carbon intensity by 2030 and 70% reduction by 2050, compared to 2008 levels. The industry’s total GHG emissions are to be reduced by 50% by the year 2050.
Is there enough time to develop new carbon-neutral fuels by 2050?
Developing and implementing new carbon-neutral fuels within 30 years is a real challenge. As the timeline shows, LNG existed for 50 years before it was introduced as a fuel for all ship types five years ago. There is the new fuel for carbon-neutral shipping for the entire shipping industry.
Can any existing technologies reduce CO2 enough to meet the IMO GHG targets?
Studies show that engine technologies available to containerships today could significantly reduce SOx, NOx, and particulate matter by using different exhaust gas systems when operating on HFO/LSHFO or MGO.
The benefit of gas turbine systems is that no exhaust gas treatment is needed to reduce these emissions. However, the current engine and gas turbine systems cannot reduce CO2 emissions when running on heavy fuel oil (HFO), low-sulphur heavy fuel oil (LSHFO), or marine gas oil (MGO).
In contrast, using LNG as a fuel for the current available engine technologies could reduce CO2 emissions to a certain extent. In combination with other technical solutions, LNG is a suitable immediate measure to meet the 2030 target.
How much CO2 do various fuels emit?
DNV GL evaluated the greenhouse gas emissions from production to shipping tank (“Well to Tank”; WTT) as well as from fuel combustion (“Tank to Propeller“; TTP). The results show that LNG emits less carbon dioxide than HFO, MGO, methanol, or hydrogen produced from methane and LPG. The CO2 emissions of biodiesel largely depend on the production method.
Will alternative fuels be available in sufficient quantities to power ships for the mid and long term?
Looking at the current fuel consumption of ships and comparing it with the total available quantities of various energy sources indicates that LNG is the only alternative fuel that can meet the goal for the next ten years. A rapid increase in demand for alternative ship fuel or competing demand from other industries will require a steep increase in the production of fuels that are currently not available in sufficient quantities for deep-sea shipping, just short-sea.
How do alternative fuels differ in terms of space requirement per distance traveled?
The reference line in the diagram represents today’s ship fuels. In terms of the required tank volume, only some fuel alternatives are acceptable for deep-sea shipping. Considering the resulting loss of cargo capacity and efficiency, hydrogen is not feasible for long distances. LNG appears more realistic, with LNG requiring the same tank volume as PtoF methane, a future carbon-neutral option, if available in sufficient quantities are available.
What technologies are available for the production of synthetic fuels?
Power-to-fuel technology, developed around 1950, was never actually applied to producing synthetic fuels because of the disproportionate amount of energy it requires. The cost of energy has since declined and carbon-neutral energy sources such as wind and solar power are available.
Is the regulatory environment ready for alternative fuels?
As a fuel for merchant ships, LNG is subject to the IMO IGF Code. LNG is currently the only advanced regulated alternative fuel and regulations for low-flashpoint fuels, including methanol that is under development. Flag states can grant exceptional permissions for other fuels, but such a new building project will be more complex and time-consuming compared to LNG.
Is the number of LNG-fuelled vessels increasing?
DNV GL’s Alternative Fuel Insight (AFI) statistics show that orders for LNG-fuelled vessels deliverable over next six years are increasing and that many owners are considering LNG as a fuel. The trend to ordering LNG-powered newbuilds is strongest in the containership segment, a clear indication that LNG is the preferred alternative transitional fuel for containership owners.
Building compliant vessels for the future today
A containership ordered today will operate until around 2043 to 2045. As of 2030, the vessel will have to contribute to the IMO GHG goal of reducing the shipping industry’s average carbon intensity by 40% when compared to 2008. A carbon-intensity reduction of approximately 20% by 2020 has already been achieved.
The decarbonization toolbox
Several measures can be taken to ensure compliance beyond 2030. Combining modifications of ship components with design adaptations can achieve fuel savings of up to 20 to 25%. While this stile misses the 40% target, using alternative fuels can be an additional element in the decarbonization toolbox to achieve and even exceed the IMO goals.
How can a 14,000 TEU vessel cut fuel costs by 18%?
This example shows the energy efficiency achieved by adapting all current technical and design solutions to a 14,000 TEU containership. Using LNG these measures would accomplish the desired savings of 40% and consequently ensure compliance beyond 2030. It is important to note that reduction could be achieved without compromising for parameters such as economies of scale, meaning that the CO2 footprint would be calculated per TEU and nautical mile.
How can future containership demands and the 2030 CO2 reduction target be met?
The present containership fleet comprises approximately 5,200 vessels, with close to 400 additional vessels in the order book. If the maritime were to stop building containerships between now and 2030, only 1,724 vessels would remain of the current fleet by then, provided that all vessels older than 18 years are scrapped before 2030 to achieve decarbonization targets set by IMO.
Fuel comparison study of a 23,000 TEU containership
DNV GL has compared the investment and operating costs of a 23,000 TEU vessel for three different fuel scenarios: LSFO as the baseline fuel, HFO combined with a scrubber system, and LNG, assuming the following operation modes:
- Operation mode 1: Ocean: LSFO (0.5%), ECA: MGO (0.1%)
- Operation mode 2: Ocean: HFO + scrubber (0.5%), ECA: HFO + scrubber (0.1%)
- Operation mode 3: Ocean: LNG + MGO pilot fuel, ECA: LNG + MGO pilot fuel
Payback times for different fuel scenarios
The chart indicates investment costs for a Tier III main engine and scrubber system of approximately 6 million US dollars and a payback time of around a year, compared with LSFO based on the outlined fuel price scenario.
Did you subscribe to our daily newsletter?
It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe!
Source: DNVGL
