In the quest for cleaner seas, researchers from Nanyang Technological University in Singapore have taken a deep dive into the world of alternative marine fuels, offering a lifeline to an industry under pressure to cut emissions. Wanying Zhang, leading the charge from the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, has just published a comprehensive review in ‘Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain’ (which translates to ‘Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain’ in English), evaluating the viability of five alternative marine fuels as potential solutions for maritime decarbonization.
The shipping industry, responsible for transporting 90% of global goods, is a major source of pollution and greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions. With increasingly stricter global and regional emission control regulations looming, the maritime industry has been scrambling to improve vessel energy efficiency. However, as Zhang points out, “these measures might not be able to effectively address the core issue of emissions, which arises from a heavy reliance on carbon-intensive energy sources.”
So, what’s the alternative? Zhang and her team have systematically reviewed the literature on liquefied natural gas (LNG), methanol, ammonia, biofuel, and hydrogen, categorizing them by their production methods and sources, and comparing them on technical feasibility, economic viability, emission reduction capabilities, availability, and safety considerations.
The findings are promising, with each fuel offering unique advantages. For instance, LNG is already widely available and can reduce sulfur oxides and particulate matter emissions significantly. However, it’s not a silver bullet, as it still emits CO2 and methane slip can be an issue. Methanol, on the other hand, can be produced from renewable sources and has a lower carbon footprint, but its energy density is lower than traditional fuels.
Ammonia, while carbon-free, poses safety challenges due to its toxicity and corrosiveness. Biofuels, derived from organic matter, can reduce CO2 emissions but face challenges in scalability and sustainability. Hydrogen, the holy grail of clean energy, produces zero emissions but faces hurdles in production, storage, and distribution.
The review also highlights the commercial impacts and opportunities for the maritime sectors. The adoption of alternative fuels is not just about environmental responsibility; it’s also about future-proofing businesses. As Zhang notes, “the practical application of these fuels is further explored through an analysis of their adoption in operational fleets and new orders, as well as the readiness of port infrastructure to support these changes.”
The development of green shipping corridors and the role of alternative fuels in these initiatives are also examined. Green shipping finance initiatives are gaining traction, offering opportunities for investors and shipowners to support the transition to cleaner fuels.
In conclusion, Zhang’s review provides valuable insights into the viability of alternative marine fuels, supporting the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) 2050 decarbonization goals. The journey towards zero emissions in global shipping is complex and challenging, but as Zhang’s work shows, it’s also full of opportunities for innovation and growth. For maritime professionals, the message is clear: the time to explore and invest in alternative fuels is now.