A Comparison of Alternative Fuels for Shipping in Terms of Lifecycle Energy and Cost
Decarbonization of the shipping sector is inevitable and can be made by transitioning into low- or zero-carbon marine fuels. This paper reviews 22 potential pathways, including conventional Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) marine fuel as a reference case, “blue” alternative fuel produced from natural gas, and “...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-12-01
|
| Series: | Energies |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/24/8502 |
| _version_ | 1797504994022260736 |
|---|---|
| author | Li Chin Law Beatrice Foscoli Epaminondas Mastorakos Stephen Evans |
| author_facet | Li Chin Law Beatrice Foscoli Epaminondas Mastorakos Stephen Evans |
| author_sort | Li Chin Law |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Decarbonization of the shipping sector is inevitable and can be made by transitioning into low- or zero-carbon marine fuels. This paper reviews 22 potential pathways, including conventional Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) marine fuel as a reference case, “blue” alternative fuel produced from natural gas, and “green” fuels produced from biomass and solar energy. Carbon capture technology (CCS) is installed for fossil fuels (HFO and liquefied natural gas (LNG)). The pathways are compared in terms of quantifiable parameters including (i) fuel mass, (ii) fuel volume, (iii) life cycle (Well-To-Wake—WTW) energy intensity, (iv) WTW cost, (v) WTW greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, and (vi) non-GHG emissions, estimated from the literature and ASPEN HYSYS modelling. From an energy perspective, renewable electricity with battery technology is the most efficient route, albeit still impractical for long-distance shipping due to the low energy density of today’s batteries. The next best is fossil fuels with CCS (assuming 90% removal efficiency), which also happens to be the lowest cost solution, although the long-term storage and utilization of CO<sub>2</sub> are still unresolved. Biofuels offer a good compromise in terms of cost, availability, and technology readiness level (TRL); however, the non-GHG emissions are not eliminated. Hydrogen and ammonia are among the worst in terms of overall energy and cost needed and may also need NOx clean-up measures. Methanol from LNG needs CCS for decarbonization, while methanol from biomass does not, and also seems to be a good candidate in terms of energy, financial cost, and TRL. The present analysis consistently compares the various options and is useful for stakeholders involved in shipping decarbonization. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T04:12:20Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-9fcc97bb4e3e4690bcd28343668a35c0 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1996-1073 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T04:12:20Z |
| publishDate | 2021-12-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Energies |
| spelling | doaj.art-9fcc97bb4e3e4690bcd28343668a35c02023-11-23T08:08:11ZengMDPI AGEnergies1996-10732021-12-011424850210.3390/en14248502A Comparison of Alternative Fuels for Shipping in Terms of Lifecycle Energy and CostLi Chin Law0Beatrice Foscoli1Epaminondas Mastorakos2Stephen Evans3Cambridge Centre for Advanced Research and Education in Singapore (CARES), CREATE Tower, 1 Create Way, Singapore 138602, SingaporeCambridge Centre for Advanced Research and Education in Singapore (CARES), CREATE Tower, 1 Create Way, Singapore 138602, SingaporeCambridge Centre for Advanced Research and Education in Singapore (CARES), CREATE Tower, 1 Create Way, Singapore 138602, SingaporeCambridge Centre for Advanced Research and Education in Singapore (CARES), CREATE Tower, 1 Create Way, Singapore 138602, SingaporeDecarbonization of the shipping sector is inevitable and can be made by transitioning into low- or zero-carbon marine fuels. This paper reviews 22 potential pathways, including conventional Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) marine fuel as a reference case, “blue” alternative fuel produced from natural gas, and “green” fuels produced from biomass and solar energy. Carbon capture technology (CCS) is installed for fossil fuels (HFO and liquefied natural gas (LNG)). The pathways are compared in terms of quantifiable parameters including (i) fuel mass, (ii) fuel volume, (iii) life cycle (Well-To-Wake—WTW) energy intensity, (iv) WTW cost, (v) WTW greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, and (vi) non-GHG emissions, estimated from the literature and ASPEN HYSYS modelling. From an energy perspective, renewable electricity with battery technology is the most efficient route, albeit still impractical for long-distance shipping due to the low energy density of today’s batteries. The next best is fossil fuels with CCS (assuming 90% removal efficiency), which also happens to be the lowest cost solution, although the long-term storage and utilization of CO<sub>2</sub> are still unresolved. Biofuels offer a good compromise in terms of cost, availability, and technology readiness level (TRL); however, the non-GHG emissions are not eliminated. Hydrogen and ammonia are among the worst in terms of overall energy and cost needed and may also need NOx clean-up measures. Methanol from LNG needs CCS for decarbonization, while methanol from biomass does not, and also seems to be a good candidate in terms of energy, financial cost, and TRL. The present analysis consistently compares the various options and is useful for stakeholders involved in shipping decarbonization.https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/24/8502maritimemarine fuelalternative fuelsdecarbonizationhydrogenammonia |
| spellingShingle | Li Chin Law Beatrice Foscoli Epaminondas Mastorakos Stephen Evans A Comparison of Alternative Fuels for Shipping in Terms of Lifecycle Energy and Cost Energies maritime marine fuel alternative fuels decarbonization hydrogen ammonia |
| title | A Comparison of Alternative Fuels for Shipping in Terms of Lifecycle Energy and Cost |
| title_full | A Comparison of Alternative Fuels for Shipping in Terms of Lifecycle Energy and Cost |
| title_fullStr | A Comparison of Alternative Fuels for Shipping in Terms of Lifecycle Energy and Cost |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Alternative Fuels for Shipping in Terms of Lifecycle Energy and Cost |
| title_short | A Comparison of Alternative Fuels for Shipping in Terms of Lifecycle Energy and Cost |
| title_sort | comparison of alternative fuels for shipping in terms of lifecycle energy and cost |
| topic | maritime marine fuel alternative fuels decarbonization hydrogen ammonia |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/24/8502 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lichinlaw acomparisonofalternativefuelsforshippingintermsoflifecycleenergyandcost AT beatricefoscoli acomparisonofalternativefuelsforshippingintermsoflifecycleenergyandcost AT epaminondasmastorakos acomparisonofalternativefuelsforshippingintermsoflifecycleenergyandcost AT stephenevans acomparisonofalternativefuelsforshippingintermsoflifecycleenergyandcost AT lichinlaw comparisonofalternativefuelsforshippingintermsoflifecycleenergyandcost AT beatricefoscoli comparisonofalternativefuelsforshippingintermsoflifecycleenergyandcost AT epaminondasmastorakos comparisonofalternativefuelsforshippingintermsoflifecycleenergyandcost AT stephenevans comparisonofalternativefuelsforshippingintermsoflifecycleenergyandcost |