Setting the course for zero-carbon shipping.

Zero carbon shipping: The complex choice of alternative fuels

The energy transition is on. The shipping industry is working to reduce carbon footprint, or even better, to reach zero emission. Several new energy sources are evaluated, such as LNG, methanol, ammonia, hydrogen, biofuels and batteries. As a shipowner, you know you must act. But which fuel type is the right choice?

Published
20 December 2021
Share

The picture is complex. How can you make the best choice?

The choice of alternative fuel depends on the mission profile. Global carbon emissions, including emissions created by the shipping industry, must be cut significantly in the coming years. Most of the emissions produced by this industry originate from fuel consumption. For all vessel types, it is crucial to understand and evaluate the operational aspects of the vessel versus the consequences of the choice of fuel types.

The green puzzle: How can the maritime industry evolve to achieve carbon neutral and zero-emission vessels?

When designing sustainable vessels, one must consider reducing energy consumption, using greener energy sources and materials, operating more effectively, and using energy smarter onboard.

In this article, we focus on using greener energy sources.

Use of greener energy sources

As ship designers, we evaluate alternative fuels with our clients and design the vessel's power system. Studies of power need, range, sailing route, and fuel availability, the realisation timeline combined with the availability and readiness of equipment and technology, the approval process, and the customer's expectations and strategies are all aspects that the ship designers will conduct with the customer. In particular, the volume and energy intensity of the different fuels must be evaluated. This might drive vessel size and operational range/endurance.

This article is based on one of Ulstein's studies on alternative fuels, which used the typical mission profile of heavy-lift installation vessels used for the foundation installation of offshore wind turbines.

Comparison of different alternative fuels

The setup below is divided into Emissions, the benefits and/or downsides regarding Safety (flammability and toxicity) and Maturity (technologically, cost of energy and bunkering availability).

Table 1 Alternative fuels comparison on emissions fuel risk profile and practical feasibility 1

Marine Diesel Oil (MDO) is today's widespread choice, but it is also yesterday's choice. The carbon footprint is too large to continue using this fuel as the sole choice for the future.

When considering alternatives, it is difficult to determine which fuel will be the sound choice. No single solution is viable for all vessel types, and evaluations of the earlier-mentioned criteria need to be done for each project. Looking into possible future needs and scenarios is also an important part of this.

Alternative fuel study for heavy lift installation vessel design

A heavy-lift installation vessel is a sizeable asset, driven by stability and deck area requirements. Because of its dimensions and layout, it is possible to identify spaces in the vessel to install dedicated tanks for alternative fuels.

Studying the typical mission profile for one of our heavy-lift installation vessel designs (the ULSTEIN HX118), we find the amount of energy needed for the typical operational modes and the duration of each mode.

Table 2 HX118 energy requirement calculation for a typical monopile installation mission cycle

Noting that a typical mission cycle in this example lasts for approximately 14 days, and having implemented an alternative fuel tank in this vessel, we can now look at the various fuel options and the usage of the fuel tank (numbers in green/red).

Table 3 Volume and weight of alternative fuels for the 14 day monopile installation mission including storage systems

From the table above, it can be concluded that all alternative fuels are theoretically feasible for the Heavy Lift Vessel (if hydrogen is assumed as liquid storage). The calculated mass of the alternative fuels is significant but controllable within the vessel's loading conditions; the expected loss in deadweight capacity is negligible.

The reference full-electric vessel, with 14 days of operation, would require a very large battery, which is impractical from both a weight and cost perspective (very expensive ~200M$). However, full-electric battery operations can be feasible for short periods.

But other aspects are not so straightforward. For many of the alternative fuels the marine industry considers, regulations (and therefore readily available and approved technology) are not yet in place.

LNG:

The most low-hanging fruit with respect to regulations is LNG, where bunkering infrastructure is also currently getting sufficiently in place. The downside is that it is still a fossil fuel.

METHANOL/AMMONIA:

Although regulations are now available for methanol and ammonia, they are still considered alternative design processes that require risk-based case-to-case approval processes to be performed.

HYDROGEN:

For hydrogen, regulations are not yet set for IMO regulated vessels, and the alternative design process will be even more time-consuming.

When evaluating fuels, the real emission reduction must be assessed, as exemplified in the figure below.

CO2 emissions for a typical mission cycle: 

Figure 1 Local and Global CO2 emissions per alternative fuel for one typical 14 day mission cycle

Green = produced from renewable energy and including carbon recapture. 
Brown = produced from fossil fuels.

Hydrogen and ammonia result in no or very low local emissions. However, for global emissions, methanol and hydrogen/ammonia must be green to produce very low emissions. Brown/grey methanol and black hydrogen/ammonia have higher global emissions than the other fuels investigated.

A clear path has not yet been laid for hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol. Only one will most likely be adopted by the market majority, and the others will most likely stay in the niche market.

For all the different fuel types, it requires that the ship and its design, the integrated equipment, systems and technologies, system approval, production and availability of the fuel itself, logistics, and bunkering are in place. On top of this, there are the commercial aspects.

We can be your ship design partner for green projects.

Get in touch

Edwin van Leeuwen Ulstein 19 comp bw

Edwin van Leeuwen

Description
Managing Director
Affiliation
Ulstein Design & Solutions B.V.

Related news

The Vaholmen VOC Recovery vessel, designed by Ulstein Design & Solutions AS.
Press Release

VOC capture to decarbonise shipping

VOC capture and utilization during loading of crude oil tankers is an important contribution to decarbonisation of shipping. Vaholmen has the solution for avoiding between 60-80% of the emissions during loading operation at offshore terminals, bringing the hydrocarbons back into the loop and realising its values.

Edwin van Leeuwen Ulstein 19 comp bw

Edwin van Leeuwen

Managing Director

Affiliation
Ulstein Design & Solutions B.V.