A certain path that shipowners will be able to travel to achieve the goal of decarbonising their fleets is not there. They have been repeating the main international representations of the sector for months now and confirms it is a new survey of how the main shipping companies are moving to achieve, with the use of more environmentally friendly fuels, they have been in the process of being able to do so. the abatement of the carbon emissions produced by their vessels that was carried out by the Global Maritime Forum, from the Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation and the Mærsk Mc Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping with the support of McKinsey & Company.

The results of the survey, carried out by interviewing companies that account for about 20% percent of the capacity of global ship fleets of all different types, is that ship owners and fleet managers will have to prepare for a future of ships that can operate with three or more "families" of fuels. According to the findings of the survey, in fact, by 2050 the most common mix of fuel that will be used, according to 45% percent of respondents, will consist of fuel oil / biodiesel, methane, methanol and ammonia. " The sector-the Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping-will have to think strategically about how to manage multicarburant fleets, and green fuels will have to be introduced in a way that will have to be introduced in a way that can be introduced in a strategic way. safe and cheap in order to make them the preferred alternative to current oil products. "

The survey also makes the point on which, at present, are the fuel currently used in the shipping sector and what will be the ones in the future used by ships to decarbonize, starting with the "family" of fuel oil such as heavy fuel oil (HFO), marine gas oil (MGO), marine diesel oil (MDO), namely, the most commonly used fossil fuels that can only be decarbonized with the use of carbon capture systems on board ships. It is a family that includes biodiesel, i.e., a "drop-in" fuel that burns in the internal combustion engines currently used by ships and that-specifies the survey-can provide up to 50-90% decarbonization compared to HFO, MGO and MDO, but it presents its own constraints of biological raw materials, as these raw materials are also required to be used as fuels in other sectors such as aviation, and also has a limited cost reduction potential as the production processes are now maturing. The survey specifies that second-generation biodiesel, which could boast sustainability credentials that are more consistent than the current biodiesel available in the market, however, require further technological maturation.

Another family of fuels for the naval sector is that of methanol. The survey explains that biometanol, which is derived from biological raw materials, can be a zero-emission fuel on a "well to wake" basis and already today there are marine engines that can burn methanol. It is-precise the ratio-of a liquid at room temperature and thus can be handled and stored. However, it has a limited cost reduction potential due to a maturing production process. As for e-methanol derived from green hydrogen and CO2 captured, the survey finds that if it is currently more expensive than biometanol, it will likely become cheaper in the future as the costs of renewable energy and of green hydrogen will decrease. However it will be more and more expensive than e-ammonia, as the latter is produced by nitrogen that is abundantly available in the air.

The survey then takes a look at the liquefied / cryogenic fuels. Relatively to methane, the study explains that liquefied natural gas, which is a fossil fuel, reduces CO2 emissions compared to heavy fuel oil by about 20% percent on a "tank to wake" basis. However, on a well-to-wake basis, CO2 emissions from the production and transport of LNG, combined with the problems of air conditioning emissions along the value chain, mean that LNG has, in some cases, a greenhouse gas footprint worse than the traditional fuel oil. As for biomethane / bio-LNG, which is derived from biological raw materials, the study observes that by leveraging existing LNG infrastructure (storage, bunkerage and ships), this fuel can be used to replace the LNG of origin fossil, but it can also deal with problems arising from climate-altering emissions of methane. It also presents a relatively limited cost reduction potential because production processes are maturing. Relatively to e-metano/e-LNG, which is derived from green hydrogen and CO2 captured and leverages existing LNG infrastructure, it has a cost structure similar to e-methanol and is also more expensive than e-ammonia. The study explains that CO2 is emitted during combustion ; however if it comes from biogenic CO2 or DAC, e-methane is generally considered to be carbon neutral on a well-to-wake basis, but it may encounter the methane climbing problems during the combustion process, especially in four-time, medium-speed engines. As for the green / blue hydrogen, the survey notes that given the disadvantageous energy density per volumetric unit, pure hydrogen, probably in liquefied form, seems to be more likely to find a market only in navigation segments at short range as those of tugboats, ferries, ships for the offshore industry and, potentially, cruise ships. The study also states that hydrogen fuel cells constitute a possible use case, but they still need to undergo stress tests on a large scale in a marine environment.

The survey then takes into account refrigerated fuels from e-ammonia, which is derived from green hydrogen and nitrogen extracted from the atmosphere and is truly a carbon-neutral fuel and-underlines the study-has the most attractive costs of any other e-fuel, in addition to presenting an interesting cost-cutting trajectory given the reduction of renewable and green hydrogen costs. However-the report says-ammonia is toxic, so losses and safety are a major concern and an ammonia engine will not be commercially available until the middle of this decade, the report said. In addition ammonia should be stored in refrigerated tanks that can reduce the loading capacity of ships and the combustion of ammonia can create nitrous oxide (N2O), a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, a problem that can be faced with the tuning of the engine and with the use of the scrubbers. As for the blue ammonia, which is produced via blue hydrogen and nitrogen extracted from the atmosphere, it is considered a low-carbon fuel and its economicality is linked to its ability to achieve economies of scale, at the cost of natural gas and the cost of capture and storage of carbon. In addition, on board the ship it faces the same challenges as e-ammonia, including toxicity, engine type availability, storage, and potential nitrogen oxide emissions.

Finally, the survey took a look at the nuclear programme, which is the closest thing to the zero carbon emissions navigation used today, for example by military navies and icebreaker ships. It is, however, a source of energy that has yet to overcome issues of environmental, regulatory, economic and acceptance by the company before it can be adopted on a large scale for commercial shipping.

If the framework of fuels available for decarbonisation of shipping currently is this, the partners who carried out the report pointed out that the road to decarbonisation of shipping must be clearly stated by the institutions : "to achieve a future of zero emissions-highlighted the Director of the Global Maritime Forum," Johannah Christensen-the sector needs a more ambitious regulatory framework with clear emission reduction targets and support policies aimed at bridging the cost gap between green fuels and fossil fuels that currently power the world fleet. "The sooner we get clarity on goals and policies, it will be easier for companies to devise a strategy on how to achieve the goals," Christensen said. In this process the role of the regulatory authorities will be crucial. In particular, it will be the outcome of the ongoing negotiations at the International Maritime Organization. "