A Well-to-Wake-Up Call
This week at MarineLink…
An Australian Prime Minister once famously (infamously) said: “Life wasn’t meant to be easy.”
He could have been talking about the maze of IMO and EU regulations relating to new fuels, especially the concept of well-to-wake emissions.
It’s not enough to have a clean-burning engine or even an onboard carbon capture system. Well-to-take emissions, upstream and out of the control of ship operators, will have to be factored in.
This week, MarineLink reported that a CMA-CGM vessel bunkered bio-LNG in Rotterdam, and it highlighted another upstream complication: the need to verify the sustainable origins of any new fuel used.
The article states that Shell issued a Proof of Sustainability certificate for the bio-LNG fuel to verify its compliance with European Union regulations. The certificate will now undergo auditing by third-party organizations accredited by the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification-European Union.
A recently published study highlights the necessity for such careful accounting. The researchers conducted an extensive literature survey and concluded that there are large differences between grey and green fuel production pathways. They also noted the significant downstream impact that different ship operating profiles can have on tank-to-wake emissions.
And another recently published study states: “Upstream methane emissions originating from the production and transport of LNG are known to be higher than those from conventional oil fuels, making it less effective as a GHG reduction measure.” This study concluded, though, that the GHG emissions reductions enabled by onboard carbon capture from all the fuel oil and LNG main engine scenarios it examined would allow fossil-fueled ships to comply with FuelEU Maritime requirements until 2044. After that, it would take onboard carbon capture from auxiliaries, higher capture rates or reduced upstream emissions.
Yet another research team has proposed a wind-to-wake ratio for evaluating fuels that provides an objective measure based on the amount of renewable energy required to propel a ship. For the scenarios covered, the combination of hydrogen and fuel cells used 30% less renewable energy than ammonia and 26% less than methanol.
The latest figures from DNV’s Alternative Fuels Insight platform confirm that shipowners are making choices. 27 new orders for alternative fueled vessels were placed in November 2024 – 23 of them for dual-fuel LNG and four of them for dual-fuel ammonia. This week, Maersk announced it had finalized orders for 20 dual-fuel LNG vessels.
OEMs are certainly developing dual-fuel engines and onboard carbon capture systems to support any fuel choice. They are helping shipowners hedge their bets on what new fuels will be available, where and when, so that they can take action now.
The likes of Maersk and CMA CGM can afford to try out multiple new fuel pathways. These big companies are helping develop the pathways that will be used by smaller companies, but smaller companies will still have to do the maths for their particular vessels and operating profiles before stepping out.
How long can they take to decide? It could be hard to justify the cost of retrofitting even a fairly new vessel when new fuel availability and price finally makes it practical to do so.
And, as that same Australian Prime Minister also said: “No point throwing your hat into the ring and not winning.”