Connect with us

Alternative Fuels

ING: Synthetic fuels could be the answer to shipping’s net-zero goals, but don’t count on them yet

ING releases a report studying the business case of synthetic shipping fuel as a technology fix to reduce carbon emissions and examines each alternative bunker fuel in detail.

Admin

Published

on

03 Green synthetic fuels are currently a lot more expensive compared to fossil fuels

Dutch multinational banking and financial services corporation ING on Monday (15 May) published a report on ‘Synthetic fuels could be the answer to shipping’s net-zero goals, but don’t count on them yet’; it was written by economists Gerben Hieminga and Rico Luman.

The report studies the business case of synthetic shipping fuel as a technology fix to reduce carbon emissions. It elaborates on four reasons not to hype synthetic fuels in shipping, green synthetic fuels can be nearly ten times more expensive and the indirect cost of synthetic fuels as less cargo can be shipped, amongst others.

The following are excerpts of the report:

Green synthetic fuels can be nearly ten times more expensive

So, it is clear by now that synthetic fuels can radically 'green' the hard-to-abate shipping sector and put it on a pathway to net-zero emissions. The necessary condition is that the required hydrogen is produced with few carbon emissions, so with blue or green hydrogen.

The obvious questions then are, why hasn’t it already happened? And why aren’t we using synthetic fuels in ships already?

The answer is pretty simple. The technology is still in its infancy, and the production process is very energy intensive compared to conventional fuel, even with mature technology. Therefore, production costs of synthetic fuel are much higher. Currently, the green options increase fuel costs by 4 to 9 times compared to fossil-based fuels, the blue options increase fuel costs by 2 to 5 times.

Green synthetic fuels are currently a lot more expensive compared to fossil fuels

Indicative unsubsidized cost of shipping fuels in euro per dead weight tonnage per 1.000km (euro/DWT/1.000km)

ING research based on energy prices from Refinitiv and fossil fuel prices in shipping from Clarkson. Fuel costs for a 82.000 deadweight tonnage ship with 230 sailing days per year at an average speed of 17 knots. Fossil fuels costs are based on market prices as of early April 2023. Synthetic fuels costs are calculated based on a gas price of €45/MWh, a power price of €140/MWh, CO2 price of €100/ton, an oil price of $80 per barrel and a euro/dollar exchange rate of 1$=0.926€. Note that this represents the Northwest European energy market as of early April 2023. It also represents (more or less) market expectations on energy prices for 2023 and 2024 in future markets as of early April 2023. The CCS capture rate in the production of blue hydrogen is assumed to be 80%. Green hydrogen is assumed to be fully produced with renewable electricity (solar, wind or hydropower) or with zero carbon sources such as nuclear power. Note that these numbers only represent the fuel costs of shipping, not the total cost of shipping which would include all capital and operational expenses of ships. We are not able to calculate the total cost of ships that run on the respective synthetic fuel as most of these technologies are still in the pilot phase and not available for large ships. Also, most synthetic fuels in shipping cannot be blended with fossil fuels as easily as in aviation.

This price differential is very important for ‘dual fuel vessels’ that can run on synthetic fuels like methanol or ammonia and fossil fuels with minimum adjustments. For these ships, it remains an option to switch to burning fossil-based bunker fuel if it is not during a trip, then at least between trips.

There are two ways of looking at this large price difference:

One way is to say that synthetic fuels are currently too expensive. This can partly be solved with subsidies and innovation, as hydrogen production costs could come down. There are many studies out there that predict large cost declines for green hydrogen. But these only emerge if capital costs for electrolysers decline strongly, power prices reduce and carbon prices increase further. That’s not unthinkable, but also not yet a done deal. It might also be that clients are willing to pay a premium for green shipping, but it remains to be seen to what extent container shipping rates will be impacted.

One could also say that fossil-based fuels are currently too cheap and synthetic fuels are not in a ‘fair fight’. The EU Fit for 55 package starts to address this point by extending the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) to maritime transport. This pricing of carbon emissions will narrow the cap between fossil fuels and synthetic fuels, in particular the green and blue ones. And the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism might trigger other regions in the world to tax carbon in shipping, too, so that they can use the tax revenues themselves instead of paying the carbon cost to Europe, for instance.

But the price of fossil fuels will also heavily depend on the pricing strategies of oil-producing countries. And we don't know how these countries will respond during the energy transition. Will they flood the market with oil in anticipation of lower oil demand, making it harder for synthetic fuels to compete with fossil fuels (the green paradox)? Or will they be able to keep prices high by reducing production in a coordinated way, which is needed to close the price gap with synthetic fuels?

Given these big uncertainties, it is almost impossible to predict the future competitiveness of synthetic fuels in shipping. And those routes which do exist shouldn't necessarily be relied on to guide as to what may happen many years from now. Shipping companies will be watching these developments closely and should be thinking in price scenarios rather than exact forecasts.

The indirect cost of synthetic fuels as less cargo can be shipped

Synthetic fuels also pose a not-so-nice trade-off between fuel costs and freight revenues. While synthetic fuels could have a positive climate impact in terms of lower CO2 emissions, they come with lower energy densities, especially on a volumetric basis.

The poor volumetric physics of synthetic fuels means that ships that run on them have to install bigger tanks to travel the same distance, but that implies less space for cargo and lower revenues. Or they could ship the same amount of cargo with a similar tank size, but then they have to refuel more often. And since the ship is docked while refuelling, it does not make money by shipping cargo around the world.

Our calculations indicate that vessels that run on methanol would have to tank 2 to 2.5 times more often compared to vessels that run on HFO, MGO or VLSFO (14 times during the year compared to 6-7 times). Note, however, that the number is pretty similar to ships that run on LNG.

The picture is even worse for vessels that run on ammonia or hydrogen. Due to the chemical characteristics, they have to tank about five times more often if they install a similar tank size compared to vessels which run on oil-based fuels. But tanking around 30 times a year is not a realistic option, so the tank size for ammonia and hydrogen-propelled vessels needs to be larger, which implies less space for cargo if the ship size stays the same.

Synthetic fuels require ships to refuel more often given a certain tank size

Indicative number of yearly refuels*

04 Synthetic fuels require ships to refuel more often given a certain tank size

*Number of yearly refuels for our reference ship of 82.000 deadweight tonnage with 230 sailing days per year at an average speed of 17 knots. The benchmark ship runs on HFO and needs to refuel 6 times a year given its tank size. We have calculated the amount of refuels for this tank size for every fuel type. The tank size holds less energy if it is filled with synthetic fuels and therefore needs to refuel more often. Note that all synthetic fuels are liquified.

4 reasons not to hype synthetic fuels in shipping

It's important not to get carried away. Synthetic fuels clearly will be part of a net-zero pathway, in particular for hard-to-abate sectors such as shipping and aviation especially as the ‘easy technological solutions’ such as electrification and end-of-pipe solutions such as Carbon Capture and Storage hold little promise. But we can’t take it too easy, there are downsides as well.

  1. The problem with synthetic fuels is that they have to be made compared to fossil fuels which can be found in the ground. And that production process is very energy intensive. For example, around 65% to 50% of energy is lost in the production process of methanol and ammonia (production efficiency). And about 45% to 60% of energy is lost by burning the fuel in the ship engine (propulsion efficiency). Taken together, you end up with overall efficiencies of 20% at worst and 25% at best, meaning that up to 80% of energy is lost when synthetic fuels are used. Put differently, ships that run on synthetic fuels only use 20%-25% of the energy that is provided. That’s a staggering low performance.
  2. Synthetic fuels require a lot of green hydrogen and thus green electricityfrom wind turbines and solar panels. In the Netherlands, for example, more than 100 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind energy is needed to substitute all the oil-based bunker fuels for aviation and shipping with synthetic fuels. Currently, only 3 GW are installed, which is expected to grow towards 20 GW by 2030 and 70 GW by 2050. While these are very ambitious targets for offshore wind, they still fall short of what would be needed for shipping and aviation. And other sectors want to use green electricity too, such as steel making, the plastics industry, road transportation and commercial and residential real estate. So, the low energy efficiencies of synthetic fuels are only justified when green energy is abundant in a net-zero economy, and we're certainly not there yet.
  3. Synthetic fuels not only require green hydrogen, but some (like methanol) also require green sources of carbon. Currently, fossil fuels are an abundant and cheap carbon source, but they won’t really be around in a net-zero economy. As a result, green carbon sources will be scarce in a net-zero economy and must come from biomass, waste (recycling of plastics and food) and carbon reservoirs (underground reservoirs from CCS activities or the air by using Direct Air Capture). All these sources are not yet readily available and commercialised. So, the production of large amounts of synthetic fuels is likely to face fierce competition for green carbon sources with other sectors at best, or competition for carbon shortages at worst.
  4. Given the energy inefficiencies and the likely shortages of green sources of carbon, it might be better to produce blue instead of green Why would one produce green hydrogen and combine it with a green carbon source, while the methanol can be produced directly from an abundant fossil carbon source and its emissions can be reduced with CCS? Our emissions graph shows that green and blue methanol has about the same emission levels, and both emit less than the fossil-based fuels that are currently used, except for LNG. So while ship owners like Maersk or their large clients such as Ikea, Amazon and Unilever might have a preference for green solutions to position themselves as sustainable companies, a bit of energy-systems thinking might lead to other choices (for example, blue options that remain fossil-based).

Note: The full ING report ‘Synthetic fuels could be the answer to shipping’s net-zero goals, but don’t count on them yet’ can be found here.

 

Photo credit and source: ING
Published: 16 May, 2023

Continue Reading

Biofuel

NYK conducts first Japan bio bunker fuel trial on coal carrier for domestic power utility firm

Firm said it has started a biofuel test run on Noshiro Maru, operated by Tohoku Electric Power, marking the first time in Japan that a coal carrier has been used to test biofuel for a domestic power utility firm.

Admin

Published

on

By

NYK conducts first Japan bio bunker fuel trial on coal carrier for domestic power utility firm

Japanese shipping firm NYK on Monday (10 February) said it has started a biofuel test run on its coal carrier Noshiro Maru, which is operated by Tohoku Electric Power on 9 February.

This is the first time in Japan that a coal carrier has been used to test biofuel for a domestic power utility company. Mitsubishi Corporation Energy in the Keihin area facilitated the supply of biofuel for the vessel.

Biofuels are made from organic resources (biomass) of biological origin, such as agricultural residues and waste cooking oil, and are considered to produce virtually zero carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions when combusted.

“Since they can be used in heavy-oil-powered ship engines, which are common on large merchant ships, biofuels are considered a key means of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transition period from heavy oil to zero-emission fuels,” NYK said. 

“Using biofuel to reduce GHG emissions during sea navigation also contributes to reducing Scope 3 GHG emissions generated by transporting customers’ cargo.”

NYK added it will continue to focus on introducing biofuels and other next-generation fuels, and will contribute to reducing GHG emissions in our customers' supply chains while promoting decarbonisation in marine transport.

 

Photo credit: NYK
Published: 11 February, 2025

Continue Reading

Biofuel

IBIA welcomes IMO move to draft guidance change on carriage of bio bunker fuels

IBIA welcomed agreement by IMO’s Sub Committee on PPR 12 to draft Interim Guidance on the carriage of blends of biofuels and MARPOL Annex I cargoes by conventional bunker ships.

Admin

Published

on

By

RESIZED IBIA logo

The International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) on Monday (10 February) said it submitted a document to IMO on the carriage of biofuels for supply to a ship for use as fuel oil on board that ship in November 2023.

This highlighted that as conventional bunker vessels were limited in carrying fuel oil of no more than 25% biofuel it presented a potential impediment to the global adoption of biofuels as fuel oil for ships and so to the ambition for the decarbonization of international shipping in the short term, as set out in the 2023 IMO GHG Strategy.

“IBIA therefore welcomes the agreement by IMO’s Sub Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR 12) to draft Interim Guidance on the carriage of blends of biofuels and MARPOL Annex I cargoes by conventional bunker ships,” it said on its website. 

The guidance allows conventional bunker ships certified for carriage of oil fuels under MARPOL Annex I to transport blends of not more than 30% by volume of biofuel, as long as all residues or tank washings are discharged ashore, unless the oil discharge monitoring equipment (ODME) is approved for the biofuel blend(s) being shipped. 

“The Interim Guidance is expected to be approved by IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 83) in April,” IBIA added. 

“IBIA’s membership represents stakeholders from across the global marine fuel value chain, and being able to draw on this technically strong and credible resource will, in its role of having consultative status to the IMO, mean that IBIA will continue to bring important matters to the attention of the wider IMO membership for due consideration.”

 

Photo credit: International Bunker Industry Association
Published: 11 February, 2025

Continue Reading

Alternative Fuels

Ammonia, methanol bunkering infrastructures among 39 projects to receive EU funding

Both projects aim to deploy a ship-to-ship bunkering system at the ports of Huelva and Algeciras respectively and include a 7500 m3 bunkering vessel each.

Admin

Published

on

By

Guillaume Périgois on Unsplash

Two projects involving ammonia and methanol bunkering infrastructures in the ports of Huelva and Algeciras in Spain were among 39 projects to receive funding under the first cut-off deadline of 2024-2025 Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Facility (AFIF) of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), according to the European Commission recently. 

The first ammonia bunkering infrastructure will be in Algecirasa as part of the Andalusian Green Hydrogen Valley. The project aims to deploy a ship-to-ship ammonia bunkering system in the port of Algeciras. 

It includes a 7500 m3 ammonia bunkering vessel, an on-shore ship loading system and the piping infrastructure for the transport of ammonia from the production site to the loading dock.  

Meanwhile, the first methanol bunkering infrastructure will be in Huelva, also as part of the Andalusian Green Hydrogen Valley. The project aims to deploy a ship-to-ship methanol bunkering system in the port of Algeciras. 

It includes a 7500 m3 methanol bunkering vessel, an on shore ship loading system and the piping infrastructure for the transport of methanol from the production site to the loading dock.

The coordinator for both bunkering projects is Spanish bunker and biofuel supplier CEPSA. 

The European Commission said the EU is allocating nearly EUR 422 million to the 39 projects that will deploy alternative fuels supply infrastructure along the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), contributing to decarbonisation. 

With this selection, the AFIF will support other projects including approximately 2,500 electric recharging points for light-duty vehicles and 2,400 for heavy-duty vehicles along the European TEN-T road network, 35 hydrogen refuelling stations for cars, trucks and buses, the electrification of ground handling services in eight airports and the greening of nine ports.

Following EU Member States’ approval of the selected projects on 4 February, the European Commission will adopt the award decision in the coming months, after which the results will become definitive. 

The European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) has started the preparation of the grant agreements with the beneficiaries of successful projects.

Note: The full list of successful projects can be viewed here.

 

Photo credit: Guillaume Périgois on Unsplash
Published: 11 February, 2025

Continue Reading
Advertisement
  • Sea Trader & Sea Splendor
  • SBF2
  • Zhoushan Bunker
  • RE 05 Lighthouse GIF
  • Consort advertisement v2
  • EMF banner 400x330 slogan
  • Aderco advert 400x330 1
  • v4Helmsman Gif Banner 01

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS

  • SEAOIL 3+5 GIF
  • HL 2022 adv v1
  • Singfar advertisement final
  • E MARINE LOGO
  • Triton Bunkering advertisement v2


  • Auramarine 01
  • Mokara Final
  • Synergy Asia Bunkering logo MT
  • 300 300
  • PSP Marine logo
  • Central Star logo
  • CNC Logo Rev Manifold Times
  • Victory Logo
  • intrasea
  • Kenoil
  • LabTechnic
  • Advert Shipping Manifold resized1
  • VPS 2021 advertisement
  • 400x330 v2 copy
  • Headway Manifold

Trending