Decarbonisation of shipping and the role of The Nautical Institute
New fuels mean new risks for those handling them – and a need for a new approach to training and safety
Jeff Parfitt FNI, Head of Safety and EnvironmentWorld climate change is top of the global agenda and barring an unpredicted major event, will remain so for the foreseeable future. The international shipping industry has its part to play in the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The painful reality is that shipping has been slow to come to the party with global stakeholders holding off from the inevitable investment of building vessels that are in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
As a truly international industry that has proven persistently resistant to change, it is clear that shipping can no longer avoid its responsibility to clean up its own sector. The race is on to discover the alternative fuel of the near future.
The fundamental issue remains how to clean up shipping, not only within the current IMO target of a 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 but to meet the newly proposed and more ambitious target of 100% reduction in GHG within the same time frame. Most recently, there has been a flurry of activity, with initiatives announced almost on a daily basis. At last, there seems to be genuine ambition for international shipping to ‘do its bit’. However, it is very difficult to keep track of all of these new initiatives and whether they have been thoroughly thought through to be both realistic and safe.
The Race
We are in what is now termed the ‘fourth industrial revolution,’ characterised by increasing digitisation and automation and the ‘fourth propulsion revolution’; specifically, the move to decarbonise shipping.
The stakes are high, with global players racing to assert their position in their chosen alternative fuel. The super energy majors such as ExxonMobil, Shell and BP are reinventing themselves as ‘transitional’ energy companies; most recently Qatar Gas became QatarEnergy, while Total is now TotalEnergies. There is a need to survive and find a position in the new world order of energy diversification. Whichever stakeholder gets it right will reap huge strategic advantage.
However, all the alternative fuels currently under consideration have one thing in common. They are all more hazardous to the seafarer than the existing fuels – and this is where The Nautical Institute has a part to play.
The role of The Nautical Institute
The Nautical Institute has identified a yawning gap in the global initiative to decarbonise the shipping industry. In nearly all cases, the human element has been ignored, or given very little attention, despite their exposure to risk. Merely requiring a computer-based training course to cover the competent handling of these fuels will not be sufficient to ensure safety.
The new fuels are hazardous. Handling them will require at least minimum skills and knowledge and a new approach to safety and hazard identification. This is the only way to prevent these fuels from becoming a danger not only to the crew, but to the port or city location within which they will operate.
At The Nautical Institute we believe we have a role to represent the seafarer in these matters. We have our part to play so that in the future we will be able to say This is what we did. There will be opportunities as yet not identified and twists and turns in the pursuit of the right fuel, but we will remain resolute in our representation of mariners.
To this end, we have already identified a number of global stakeholders to work with. Our developing remit is to identify how we can best inform and influence the professional development of seafarers to safely handle these alternative fuels through cooperation and initiatives. We will position the Institute as the ‘go to’ organisation in this matter and we want our members to contribute to this journey.
A look at the proposed alternative fuels
LNG has a very low sulphur content, and using it as a fuel will result in better air quality at the point of emission. However, while it results in lower GHG emissions than current fuels, it is not GHG free. Further, methane slippage is a factor. This occurs when unburned gas leaks through the engine. If methane slip is not controlled, environmental benefits are reduced and can cancel out any advantages over traditional bunker fuel due to the high greenhouse effect of methane when compared to CO2. It is also contained at cryogenic temperatures (-165°C) and there are expensive associated construction and handling concerns.
UECC has taken delivery of the world’s first dual-fuel LNG battery hybrid pure car carrier.
LPG is any mixture of propane and butane in liquid form. As a fuel it provides a reduction in CO2 emissions compared to HFO. As with LNG, the use of LPG largely eradicates sulphur emissions from fuel burn. Again, as with LNG, there is an issue of slippage. As with LNG, LPG storage requires larger tank capacity. LPG can be either pressurised or refrigerated.
Methanol has the lowest carbon content of any liquid fuel and is considered a clean-burning fuel. It can substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, making it a strong candidate for alternative fuels. It also requires more storage capacity, typically 2.5 times more volume than existing fuels [WFW]. On the upside, it is simpler to handle and offers less operator complications than other proposed alternatives.
Xpress Feeders has placed an order for eight 1,170 TEU feeder vessels to run on methanol/conventional fuel. Maersk have ordered eight 16,000 TEU dual fuel container vessels capable of running on methanol or LS fuel, and is investing in its own methanol production plant.
Hydrogen (liquid) is seen as a real alternative to fossil fuel or carbon-based alternatives. Hydrogen produces zero carbon dioxide emissions and could eliminate emissions of GHG from ships – although as with all alternative fuels, overall effectiveness depends on how it is produced in the first place.
Hydrogen could provide shipping with a zeroemission solution, although the inherent risks associated with liquid hydrogen as a ship fuel would involve a more complex seafarer training regime. As a ship fuel, it can be stored as a cryogenic liquid (-253°C) or a compressed gas. Storage of liquefied hydrogen takes five times the space of traditional fuels and as a gas increases to 15 times the equivalent volume.
Currently there are several initiatives for the production of hydrogen which in turn would be used to produce green ammonia. German energy company RWE has announced a $57 billion investment in a production plant; Ineous have announced a $2.3 billion investment. RWE and Kawasaki are to collaborate on a $358 million dollar project to build liquefied hydrogen carriers.
The world’s first liquefied hydrogen carrier (LH2) Suiso Frontier is now complete and in operation.
Ammonia is carbon free and the announcement of large scale hydrogen production facilities will allow for the production of ‘green ammonia’. Due to the corrosive nature of the substance, it would require a re-design of current engine technology.
Ammonia does present handling and storage challenges requiring expensive tank construction materials and Teflon seals. Loss of containment would pose a serious health and safety issue to the crew and to the surrounding port locality. Ammonia requires a storage capacity of around 2.5 times that of current fuels.
There are currently several vessels under construction or in the process of being retro-fitted to operate on ammonia: Fortescue Metals Group are planning to convert its eight 260,000 dwt bulkers to run on green ammonia.
Sembcorp Marine has gained ABS approval for an ammonia bunkering barge.
Nuclear powered vessels have re-emerged as a possible solution; this is a proven technology. Past failures have also helped new high-tech innovations in nuclear power production. The US Dept of Energy is investing $8.5 million in research into small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) with new reactor designs, such as molten salt reactors (MSRs). MSRs, currently being developed by TerraPower and CorePower, can fuel a ship for up to 25-30 years, the lifetime of most ships. Samsung Heavy Industries is working with Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) to develop the use of MSRs to power ships.
While nuclear powered ships may seem an unlikely option, this proposal is gathering traction in the US and the UK. What might seem a non-viable initiative in 2022 could potentially be the solution by 2050.
Each of these new fuels poses its own risks and challenges. There are over 50,000 vessels registered with the IMO operating on a global basis and it is the lowest maintained vessels and least trained crews that will pose the biggest threat to any port they visit. DNV recently stated that crews will require ‘upskilling’ to deal with these fuels, and they are correct. In addition, ships will require to be maintained to a higher standard than now – there can be no room for a leaking gland dripping ammonia into an engine space. Hydrogen is the smallest molecule known and will find a leak. This means the industry will need to engineer new vessel designs and operational systems with new materials. It will also need to cater for larger bunker tanks to facilitate the storage of these fuels as with the exception of nuclear power they all take up more space than existing bunker fuels. Ports will need to provide specialist bunker facilities or vessels will need to bunker in remote locations.
In conclusion
All the proposed alternative fuels are viable. However, they all present unique safety hazards to the mariner and potentially to the port locality. There are serious issues of effective crew training to be identified along with stringent maintenance procedures specific to the fuels. Then there is the whole concept of vessel and system designs to be engineered. Finally, they also all present serious financial risk to the shipowner. As yet, there is no obvious safe passage for shipowners to navigate. We are entering uncharted waters, and need to navigate with extreme caution.
Further articles will appear in Seaways detailing the associated risks with each fuel and the progress of our involvement in this initiative.
Some relevant background
The Paris Agreement
The Paris Agreement was signed on 12 December 2015 during the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21).
The Agreement is a legally binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit the global temperature increase this century to 2°C. All signatories are required to work together and to strengthen their commitments over time.
The Paris Agreement marked the beginning of a shift towards a net zero emissions world.
COP 26 and the Clydebank Declaration
The 26th UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) was held in Glasgow in November last year, and was intended to accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The ‘Clydebank Declaration,’ signed during this conference, states that ‘the signatories of the Declaration are to support the establishment of green shipping corridors – zero emission maritime routes between two (or more) ports – ‘[UK DfT]’. In order to achieve these ‘Clydebank’ aspirations, alternative fuels are required and are being
NB: The opinions expressed are those of the author and not that of The Nautical Institute.