Methanol is Shipping’s New Fuel

Demonstrating what can be achieved

Proman, the world’s second-largest producer of methanol, and the shipping company Stena Bulk formed their joint venture Proman Stena Bulk to benefit from synergies between their companies in building up a fleet of modern, sustainable MR chemical tankers. “Together with Stena, a pioneer in methanol-fuelled ship operation, we are in a great position to demonstrate to the market what can be achieved with methanol propulsion,” says Peter Schild, Managing Director Sustainability at Proman. The joint venture’s current newbuild programme comprises six state-of-the-art dual-fuel MR tankers, all built to DNV class with three owned by the joint venture and three owned by Proman. Four of the vessels have been delivered already. “Through multiple optimizations, these vessels have achieved a world-leading EEDI for this ship type, which is seven per cent better than any other existing MR newbuild,” says Jacob Norrby, Head of Newbuilds and Projects at Stena Teknik.

“The reason Proman and Stena Bulk decided to go for methanol-fuelled ships is to be prepared for the transformation we have to undergo on the way to net zero,” says Erik Hånell, CEO of Stena Bulk. “We know that we will be able to use this investment through to 2050 and beyond.” The plan is to blend in increasing amounts of blue and, eventually, green methanol to remain compliant with the IMO trajectory towards zero carbon.

Simpler design requirements – lower CAPEX

A new chapter of the DNV document “Alternative Fuels for Containerships” discusses the properties and requirements not only of methanol in detail, and most of its insights on methanol as a fuel can be applied to other ship types as well. “We are currently seeing strong interest in both LNG and methanol and it seems that both fuels will play a role in the future,” says Christos Chryssakis, Business Development Manager at DNV. “Methanol is neither better nor worse than LNG, but its properties are quite different, making it attractive for certain ship types.”  

The capital investment for a methanol-fuelled newbuild or retrofit is lower because there is no need for pressurization or costly cryogenic fuel tanks and systems. “The whole design is simpler, which makes building the ship easier and less expensive, and fuel handling is also less challenging,” says Chryssakis. Methanol fuel tanks take roughly 2.5 more space than oil tanks, while cofferdams are required in some cases for protection. Methanol is also a toxic and flammable low-flashpoint fuel that does require specific safety precautions, which are, however, significantly simpler than those for LNG.

Safety and environmental considerations for methanol

“Methanol is neither a ‘climate’ gas nor an environmental hazard. It mixes well with water and becomes harmless quickly because it is biodegradable,” explains Skåra. “But because of the toxicity of the vapours escaping during bunkering, gas hazard zones must be designated on board – a point to consider on passenger ships.” Methanol vapours are heavier than air so they sink to lower-lying areas, he adds.

Methanol combustion requires adding about five per cent of MGO as a pilot fuel. On certain engine types, water can be injected into the combustion chamber to lower the NOx emissions. When retrofitting a methanol fuel system, existing fuel tanks or even ballast water tanks may be used for methanol after applying a specific internal coating, provided the required access points are available.

Methanol engine technology is proven and not especially complex, Skåra points out. “We know how to handle and use methanol as fuel, so it’s just about developing engines for various ship types.” The leading engine manufacturers plan to have more methanol-ready engines and retrofitting kits available soon, he adds.

Emission regulations not harmonized globally

“One of the biggest challenges is that fossil methanol actually increases the total life cycle of GHG emissions by approximately 10 per cent compared to MGO, while LNG reduces these emissions by 10 to 20 per cent depending on engine technology,” Chryssakis points out. “The current IMO regulations only account for the tank-to-propeller emissions, giving fossil methanol some carbon credit and a grace period until the mid-2030s before a switch to green methanol will be necessary. This may change in future, however; for example, the European FuelEU Maritime initiative, which takes effect in 2025, will penalize the well-to-wake emissions of fossil fuels.” 

A growing order book of newbuilds and retrofits

The order book for methanol-fuelled ships keeps growing, including for containerships, bulk carriers, tankers and even cruise and passenger vessels, with the first deliveries expected in 2024. “The demand is very high – owners want to be ready for this fuel,” says Skåra. “Orders for conversions of existing engines are likewise on the rise.”  

Smaller cargo and offshore vessels which don’t have much space on board stand to benefit especially from the relative simplicity of methanol technology, says Chryssakis. For example, Van Oord has ordered a new methanol-fuelled wind farm installation vessel which will also feature advanced emission-control technology.

Bunkering infrastructure

There are currently 122 ports with methanol storage facilities worldwide, and various ports – such as Gothenburg – have issued methanol bunkering rules or are preparing to do so. “In Norway, where we have a lively methanol industry, ships can bunker methanol from tank trucks,” says Skåra. “The long-term solution will probably be bunker vessels because of their simplicity and flexibility.” Proman Stena Bulk have successfully carried out ship-to-ship, berth-to-ship and truck-to-ship methanol bunkering operations, says Proman’s Peter Schild.