Zero-Carbon Shipping Fuels: New Solutions or New Pollutants?

Emerging evidence suggests that some of these alternative fuels may introduce new environmental damage, despite major efforts by the maritime industry to pursue zero-carbon fuels to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, which account for approximately 3% of global emissions. 

Ammonia has attracted attention as a potential zero-carbon fuel since it emits no carbon dioxide when burned. Recent developments include the successful journey of an ammonia-powered tugboat on the Hudson River, which demonstrated the viability of ammonia as a maritime fuel. This vessel, refitted by startup Amogy, uses technology that converts ammonia into hydrogen and nitrogen to power fuel cells, emitting largely water and nitrogen.

While this is a huge step towards decarbonising shipping, there are concerns regarding ammonia’s environmental impact. When ammonia is discharged into the environment, it contributes to air pollution and the production of particulate matter, both of which pose health risks. Furthermore, ammonia is harmful to marine species, and inadvertent leaks could have negative consequences for aquatic ecosystems. As a result, while ammonia provides a carbon-free energy source, its use demands severe safety precautions and spill prevention techniques to reduce any environmental risks.

Hydrogen is another option in the search for zero-emission shipping fuels. It may be manufactured with low greenhouse gas emissions and, when utilised, releases just water vapour. However, the generation of green hydrogen, which requires electrolysis using renewable energy, is currently costly and energy intensive. Furthermore, hydrogen has a low energy density, necessitating huge storage quantities, posing issues for long-distance maritime excursions. The infrastructure for hydrogen refuelling is similarly in its early stages, requiring significant investment to become practical for widespread maritime use. While hydrogen shows promise as a clean fuel, economic and logistical barriers must be overcome before it can be adopted in the maritime industry.

Methanol, particularly when synthesised with collected CO2 and renewable energy (e-methanol), is being investigated as a maritime fuel. Through the Zero Emissions Maritime Buyers Alliance, companies such as Amazon and IKEA advocate for the use of near-zero emissions e-fuels in shipping, such as e-methanol. E-methanol has the potential to dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions when compared to conventional marine fuels. However, methanol is poisonous, and its use raises worries about water contamination from accidents. The manufacturing of e-methanol requires significant amounts of renewable energy and collected CO₂, which poses scalability problems. While e-methanol presents an opportunity to reduce emissions, thorough analysis of its environmental impact and production viability is required.

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has set ambitious goals for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping by or around 2050. This strategy includes a commitment to ensuring the use of alternative zero and near-zero GHG fuels by 2030. To achieve these objectives, the marine industry must manage the complexity of using new fuels that not only cut carbon emissions but also have minimal environmental and health consequences. This necessitates a comprehensive approach that takes into account the total lifecycle emissions of fuels, potential contaminants, and the environmental effects of their use.

In conclusion, while transitioning to zero-carbon shipping fuels is critical for decreasing the industry’s carbon footprint, the potential environmental trade-offs associated with these alternatives must be thoroughly assessed and addressed. Balancing the benefits of lower greenhouse gas emissions against the need to prevent new sources of pollution will be critical to achieving fully sustainable maritime operations.

More reading: