However well-intentioned, early investment in shipping biofuels may be misguided, according to the latest study by consultancy UMAS. Released today, Cost of Zero Emissions Container Freight Shipping: a study on selected deepsea and shortsea routes, gives headline figures of a 17-50% increase in rates per teu for Shanghai to LA, prompted by an increase in ship operating costs of $90-450/teu, reports The Loadstar.
About the study
Also, a 9-17% increase for a 4,000 teu feeder service along the Chinese coastline – as of 2030, fuelled by a $30-70/teu increase in operating expenses.
The study’s authors are keen to point out, however, that these figures represent a “conservative perspective” on the outlook for fuel costs – a worst-case scenario, in which countries make zero concessions in terms of subsidies.
The US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is cited as an example of a subsidy that has been excluded, “providing a conservative perspective on the outlook for fuel costs”.
“…the difference could drop as low as 1.6 to 2.4 times if subsidized hydrogen used for e-ammonia production ranged from $1 to $3/kg-H2,” UMAS suggests.
The study takes care to distinguish between zero-emission fuels and what UMAS calls “scaleable zero-emission fuel” (SZEF). For example, while Maersk has taken it up as part of its project to jump-start green methanol production, bio-methanol is not considered by UMAS to be SZEF, “due to supply constraints and the impact of land use change associated with some biogenic feedstocks”.
Bio-LNG, or bio-derived heavy fuel oil, such as that used in Samskip vessels recently, would also stand outside the SZEF category, for the same reason. But because the feedstock for non-scalable zero-emission fuels is limited, and will only become more so, UMAS determines that first-mover investment in these non-SZEFs “would be money wasted”.
At any rate, bio-feedstocks will likely be funneled into aviation and trucking, instead of shipping. For example, the text of RefuelEU Maritime makes this overt, with provisions to discourage “a shift of crop-based biofuels… to maritime transport…” and “…the creation of a potentially large demand for food and feed crop-based biofuels, bioliquids, and biomass fuels [in shipping]”.
For SZEF fuels such as green methanol and green ammonia – made using renewable energy – UMAS expects the first-mover investment will yield lower costs in the next decades.
“Early movers in the transition… have a choice: to go for cheaper but non-scalable fuels… which will become more expensive as demand outstrips supply,” or invest in more expensive SZEFs, “…thus stimulating a more likely long-term solution that will become cheaper as production ramps up and demand grows”.
Though some of Maersk’s methanol project investments rely on scalable production processes, making them SZEFs by definition, many do not, meaning UMAS appears to be advising against the shipping giant’s first-mover strategy.
“… while [bio-methanol, bio-LNG, etc] is cheaper in the short-run, the initial use… does not significantly improve the long-run costs of DAC-methanol,” the study says. “This is because they use different production pathways, meaning that any early investments, learning, and advantages of scale translate poorly from bio-methanol to DAC-methanol.”
However it is not all doom and gloom, adds UMAS.
Did you subscribe to our daily Newsletter?
It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe
Source: The Loadstar
