A white paper published by classification society DNV on Wednesday (20 April) has concluded that developing “green” drop-in fuels alone may not be enough for the naval segment as there are other practical considerations such as logistics and fuel availability in determining the feasibility of different low- or zero-carbon fuels.
The white paper titled “Alternative Fuels for Naval Vessels” explores how naval vessels can minimise their environmental impact without increasing their operational vulnerability.
Navies around the world are becoming increasingly aware that they will also be affected by the decarbonisation challenge facing the maritime world.
However, to fulfil their defensive purpose, naval vessels must also meet specific requirements which add complexity to their search for the most sustainable fuel types, says DNV.
Despite navies not being subject to the same scrutiny as the commercial shipping industry, they are nevertheless coming under growing societal pressure to reduce their environmental footprint.
Furthermore, they will need to face potential global challenges affecting logistics and, therefore, fuel availability.
This has implications for the design of future naval vessels and developing “green” drop-in fuels alone may not be sufficient.
While the scientific and practical advancements made in developing and testing alternative fuels and propulsion technologies for private sector shipping are of great value to the military, combatant naval vessels must be able to operate under direct threat, at high speeds, and for extended periods of time without refuelling.
“Alternative fuels are the most effective measure to fully decarbonise in the future, but practical considerations such as logistics, fuel availability, fuel change flexibility and design impacts are critical factors in determining the feasibility of the different low- or zero-carbon fuels for the naval segment,” said Christian von Oldershausen, DNV Maritime Segment Director for Navy.
“The new paper evaluates different fuel options to provide a solid decision support for newbuilds and vessels in operation.”
“This white paper provides an excellent starting point for us to work together to protect our environment and at the same time ensure the operational readiness of our navies,” said Jan Christian Kaack, Vice Admiral, Chief German Navy, Commander Fleet and Supporting Forces.
The white paper is based on a wide range of public-domain information sources as well as a survey conducted among 130 stakeholders from 12 countries to ascertain current trends and expectations.
It summarises recent technology developments; discusses current and emerging fuel choices including their pros and cons, as well as their technical and military implications; looks at other carbon abatement and efficiency enhancing measures; and analyses the current navel fleets and their respective uptake of alternative fuels.
The authors differentiate between the needs of combatant vessels and those of auxiliary, non-combatant ships, which usually operate closer to shore and travel shorter distances. Special attention is given to the unique operating patterns of submarines and the resulting requirements.
The document sees significant potential – especially for non-combatant ships – to adopt alternative fuels which are available today and increasingly used by the merchant fleet. In the survey conducted for this white paper, more than 83% of respondents saw biofuels as a more realistic option for naval ships than ammonia, methanol, hydrocarbons or other power sources.
The paper also explores the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear propulsion, which has been used by the United States Navy for decades because of the speed and endurance it gives to combatant vessels.
The full copy of the whitepaper can be downloaded here.
Photo credit: DNV
Published: 25 April, 2022
Program introduces periodic assessments, mass flow metering data analysis, and regular training for relevant key personnel to better handle the MFMS to ensure a high level of continuous operational competency.
U.S. Claims Register Summary recorded a total USD 833 million claim from a total 180 creditors against O.W. Bunker USA, according to the creditor list seen by Singapore bunkering publication Manifold Times.
Glencore purchased fuel through Straits Pinnacle which contracted supply from Unicious Energy. Contaminated HSFO was loaded at Khor Fakkan port and shipped to a FSU in Tanjong Pelepas, Malaysia to be further blended.
Individuals were employees of surveying companies engaged by Shell to inspect the volume of oil loaded onto the vessels which Shell supplied oil to; they allegedly accepted bribes totalling at least USD 213,000.
MPA preliminary investigations revealed that the affected marine fuel was supplied by Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd who later sold part of the same cargo to PetroChina International (Singapore) Pte Ltd.
‘MPA had immediately contacted the relevant bunker suppliers to take necessary steps to ensure that the relevant batch of fuel was no longer supplied. Further investigations are currently on-going,’ it informs.