(Photo: Julius Silver / Pexels)
Alex Ariker, International Business Committee — We live in a world of convenience, where instead of asking how many weeks it will be until we receive our next Amazon package, we ask ‘How many days?’ This lifestyle we have come to expect is supported by a complex web of logistics made possible by maritime shipping.
Our dependence on freighters with hundreds of thousands of shipping containers to channel the world’s goods from port to port and country to country cannot be understated. Over 90 percent of the world’s goods are shipped this way.
The burning of bunker fuel to power maritime shipping accounts for some 858 million tons of CO2 emissions per year; more than the entire air transport industry and greater than the output of many nations. This has not gone unnoticed by the world or its watchdogs.
Beginning in 2008, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized branch of the United Nations meant to regulate shipping, has tried to tackle the industry’s unscrupulous contribution to climate change with current plans to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Since 2008, the IMO and other organizations have created international requirements for the use of forms of bunker fuel with fewer pollutants, alternatives like Marine Diesel Oil.
Firms with their own environmental goals that contract freight companies are also slowly starting to expect the companies they contract with to provide carbon-neutral ways to ship their merchandise, increasing pressure on freight companies to transition away from bunker fuel.
Although some alternatives to bunker fuel like liquid natural gas (LNG) already exist and partially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the transition to a carbon neutral fleet will not be possible without switching to more exotic alternative fuel sources, a daunting task considering 95 percent of the world’s fleet is powered by internal-combustion engines.
Currently, two fuel sources seem primed to replace bunker fuel in the long run: methanol and ammonia.
Of these energy sources, methanol is closest to becoming the future fuel of the maritime shipping industry. Methanol can reduce the greenhouse gasses emitted by traditional marine fuels by up to 95 percent and marine engines can already burn methanol for energy. In fact, several ships already run partly or completely on the substance and many more have been ordered.
Liquid at room temperature, methanol can also be safely stored and transported in a similar way to bunker fuel. Additionally, methanol has a higher volumetric energy density, meaning it can hold more energy with the same volume, than ammonia.
Why then continue to pursue other alternative fuel sources? Given the 185 methanol-capable ships expected to be constructed and delivered in the coming years, demand for methanol is expected to far outweigh supply. SEA-LNG, a lobby group, projects that demand for methanol will be 14 million tons per year in 2028, despite current production at only 6 percent of that, at three-quarters of a million tons per year.
Ammonia then, may be a valuable alternative fuel source to consider for a green future. The first of several compelling characteristics, ammonia can be entirely derived from atmospheric molecules, rendering it truly carbon free. Additionally, ammonia is relatively cheap compared to other alternative fuel sources given its precursor molecules are abundant in the atmosphere. Ammonia is also already commonly traded, so the shipping industry could make use of the infrastructure for the storage and transportation of ammonia that already exists.
However, multiple obstacles still exist before ammonia can be adopted as an alternative fuel source. For one, engines that use Ammonia as marine fuel are not yet available, although expectations set them to be developed later this year at the earliest. Ammonia is also toxic, so leaks present a safety concern for crew members. Additionally, Ammonia needs to be stored in refrigerated tanks, potentially reducing cargo capacity aboard freighters. Despite these shortcomings, Ammonia still has potential as an alternative fuel for the future of maritime shipping.
Instead of a single fuel, a variety of fuels will most likely see use as the world transitions towards a carbon neutral shipping industry. More important is the speed at which the industry makes this transition against a backdrop of worsening climate change.
A survey from the Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation, the Global Maritime Forum, and the Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping indicated that 46 percent of shipping companies (those sampled represent 20 percent of the world’s capacity) have already begun running pilot programs involving alternative fuels.
However, with an average lifespan of 20 years, freighters and their owners need to begin transitioning to green energy sources now to reach net zero emissions by 2050. With more ships taking longer routes because of geopolitical struggles like the war in Ukraine and instability near the Suez Canal, a quick transition to carbon-neutral fuel sources is even more important. Maritime shipping companies need to do more now to guarantee our shared future on Earth.