The Transition to Zero – Spin the Wheel of Fortune

Current shipping discussions at both foreign and domestic venues are overflowing with the single subject of emissions while a growing number of companies make their reach for a net zero target. As the International Maritime Organization (IMO) tightens regulations to advance that reach, efforts to address climate change are coupled with a new understanding of the challenge at hand. Net zero will require a transition away from fossil fuels, followed by a movement to alternative fuels and at some time in the future a new zero technology turning the reach into a grasp. Some look to electrification and others to nuclear as future technologies, and we have written about their capability in past articles. What needs to be understood at this point in time is the simple fact that propulsion with zero emissions does not exist—at least not in any form that is widely obtainable (let alone commercially viable) across the broad spectrum of commercial marine operations.

Make no mistake about it, the reach and the regulations have disrupted new construction, infrastructure, trading patterns, safety issues and crew training. For the shipping industry, decarbonizing the global fleet is a task well beyond regulation and marine engineering. How the world’s industrial infrastructure and politics will support new technology is the guiding factor to achieve the goal. We are well within the 2024 operating year and the majority of vessels in operation continue to run on fossil fuels; and they will for years to come.

The first hurdle is to overcome the age of the fleet. The average age of the global fleet has been calculated to be over 20 years old. The U.S. flag domestic fleet is well past that age, reaching anywhere between 25 and 40 years. Propulsion technology has worked toward sulfur reduction, NOx reduction and “ECO” reduction in fuel consumption and speed. With that said, the age profile does not employ propulsion technology that can be modified to transition to alternative fuels. Simply put, the transition to alternative fuels to accomplish the fleet’s decarbonization requires us to place orders for newbuilds operating on “cleaner” fuels.

A simple solution? Not entirely, as the definition of “cleaner” continues to change. Alternative fuels derived from oil or coal are not readily acceptable on a “well to wake” comparison to marine diesel oil despite being “cleaner”. Think methanol, ammonia and liquefied natural gas (LNG) described as “grey and brown” alternatives. “Green” alternatives of these fuels produced by biomass, electrolysis, wind, solar or newer technologies are considered better “well to wake” alternatives. One needs to learn the alternative fuel color wheel.

Look first to the transition phase. We see increasing numbers of reported orders for dual fuel propulsion with methanol, ammonia, hydrogen and LNG capabilities. The systems require pilot fuel of marine diesel oil when attempting to burn one, if not all, of the “alternatives”, and with that the emission reduction calculation is flawed. What is more important in moving through the transition phase is the industry’s inability to select and agree upon a single alternative fuel source. Spinning the “wheel of fortune” to select a fuel reduces the ability to reach the necessary demand for that fuel to become available throughout the world bunkering ports. The airline industry understands this concept, and maritime has been operating with a single fuel source for nearly a century. We need to decide which alternative fuel takes us through the transition period, and that decision reaches well beyond “emissions”, as all of the selections have issues. Ammonia, methanol and hydrogen have safety issues that need to be addressed prior to large scale storage and use. Many cities are embracing and legislating the development of full electric ferry fleets, yet the grid infrastructure does not have the power necessary at each terminal location to complete high-capacity charging of the energy storage system.

In no uncertain terms, we need to communicate beyond ship design, energy density, speed and consumption to match the requirements of the trade routes, commercial performance and infrastructure deficiencies. The research needed to reach zero emissions will require this data from the transition phase. Electrification is limited to ship size, energy requirement and speed. Ammonia raises significant safety issues. Methanol as a liquid looks to be the quickest way to transition to alternatives as it limits ship design modifications to fuel tanks, and bunkering procedures. Green hydrogen production requires large amount of electrical power to be produced. Identifying some of these power and safety problems through infrastructure upgrades can lead us to a single fuel transition phase and into the next stage of zero.

The upgrades to the infrastructure needed to solve climate change and provide necessary power to fully embrace EV transportation, hydrogen electrolysis, and cold iron AMP at the cargo terminals is enormous. The power requirement is leading us to new small module reactor nuclear power as the solution ashore. Working hand in hand to solve the land-based problem will help us to design and move past the transition period and into commercial ship nuclear power. An “atom to wake” process that can take us to zero emissions at sea and ashore.

Most if not all of the IMO emission goals target larger “blue water” tonnage affecting foreign flag construction and operation. Our domestic fleets in the U.S of smaller “brown water” tonnage present a completely different set of problems. The analysis of markets, operations, vessel types and trading patterns is required along our coasts and rivers to determine how we will transition to zero. Whether vessels employed along the coasts will meet the transitional emission requirements is far from complete. Offshore wind is being serviced and built on our coasts by vessels burning diesel oil. The container ship tonnage servicing the noncontiguous markets of Puerto Rico, Alaska and Hawaii have turned to LNG. With that decision came an effort to build and provide LNG bunker barges. At this point, the U.S. domestic fleet has very limited tonnage capable of moving chemicals and alternative fuels needed to a) select a transition fuel and b) position these fuels in bunker ports within the trading itinerary. Where is the tonnage to move methanol, hydrogen, FAME and ammonia for the U.S. Flag to move into the transitional emissions period?

As commercial builders and operators, we look to the problem affecting the ferry markets, articulated tug and barges, tankers, platform supply vessels (PSV) along with crew transfer vessels (CTV) and service operations vessels (SOV) in offshore wind. Our commercial markets are targeted with solutions to meet the international goals. A recent industry article referenced the climate effect of nearly 6,000 “superyachts”, and along with that, simple recreational boating. The social media efforts targeting the “1%” as ignoring emissions from nontraditional commercial applications. The results tagged as “ecocide”. All the more reason to establish a joint U.S effort to establish a single fuel to solve the problem and meet the goals before we become a Thursday evening Law & Order.