there are lessons to be learned here from road haulage and power generation, where most existing engines can run on biofuel with little or no modification.”
Louis Notley is an advocate of biofuels
An alternative to LNG is the use of biofuels – fuels made from dead plants or animals. Louis Notley is a former logistics specialist with the UK’s Royal Navy and a former COO at a biofuels manufacturer, and is now a consultant with Nisomar. He told CM that pure biodiesel officially gives an 85% reduction in CO2 emissions compared with regular mineral diesel. In addition, burning biofuels produces no sulphur. Estimates of the reductions in NOx emissions offered by biofuels vary wildly – between 0% and 98%, depending on which study you choose to
believe.In terms of cost, Notley admitted that biofuels are more expensive to produce than mineral diesel. While they are subsidised as road fuel in some countries, these subsidies are controversial and do not apply to international shipping. However, he said, it is possible to manufacture cheaper biofuel from lower-grade feedstock, which would help make biofuels more competitive against marine gas oil.
Asked whether biofuel is more suitable for new-builds or for retrofitting, Notley said: “It is very viable for existing ships and is already being used in a number of commercial applications. I have not trialled biofuel on a large marine two-stroke engine, but
He added: “For ships, there are implications for fuel storage and handling, as biofuels are by their nature hydroscopic [i.e. they absorb water], so they need to be kept dry. Above all, biofuels are a great intermediate step for heavy haulage, from ‘dirty diesel’ to replacement technologies like fuel cells or battery/ electric, enabling immediate and significant reductions in emissions by adopting a percentage blend early on.”
Going green, saving money
When the industry talks of fuel economics, the conversation usually focuses on minimising costs. However, a recent announcement suggests that alternative fuel use could also have an influence on revenue, as shippers are given the option to go green. In December 2017, DHL Global Forwarding signed an agreement with the GoodShipping programme, committing itself to offering customers a choice of transporting their goods on container ships that use “waste-based” biofuels.
These are biofuels made from materials that do not compete with food production. This negates one ethical criticism of biofuels, which is that they divert food away from hungry mouths and into engines. Whatever the ethical rights and wrongs of this debate, the controversy has continued to affect the level of subsidies that go into biofuels around the world and therefore the extent to which they are affordable.
On top of this, according to Gilpin, the growing need for both clean fuel and more food to feed a growing global population is likely to push biofuel prices up. “Biofuels have good potential,” she said, “but they are subject
to some challenging supply and demand constraints. All sectors will need them in a decarbonised future, and there’s not enough land to grow sufficient food for the global population and supply an alternative to fossil fuels.”
Another possible alternative to burning fuel is to power ships with lithium batteries. Such batteries are already powering cruise liners, ferries and even a cargo ship that carries coal on the Pearl River in China. However, while this may be a good solution for some types of shipping, it is particularly unsuitable for long- haul container ships. The first reason for this is that container vessels travel much longer distances than most ferries, cruise liners and other cargo ships. Therefore, they would need a much larger battery capacity.
Russell Edson pointed out that battery capacity is a problem
According to Russell Edson, a partner at intellectual property firm Withers & Rogers: “Wider take-up of electric propulsion systems in the shipping sector is being held back due to limitations in battery capacity. This means that all-electric vessels would not currently be able to undertake
The Report • June 2018 • Issue 84 | 61
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
