Techno-Economic Assessment of Zero-Carbon Fuels.

(Lloyds Register and University Maritime Advisory Services) ... This paper is an example of this collaboration; it examines three important elements of zero-carbon fuels when compared with traditional fossil-based fuels. All candidate fuels considered in this paper have some emissions associated with them because of the ways they would be produced and transported. However, all these fuels have very low CO2 emissions, and they may have the potential to become zero CO2 emissions. Therefore, we refer to these fuels as zero-carbon fuels.

In the short term, biofuels look marginally more competitive than fuels derived from renewable electricity or from natural gas with carbon capture and storage (NG with CCS). However, there are significant challenges related to the sustainability and availability of biofuels.

Therefore, in the mid-long term, any biofuel pathway is uncompetitive and prone to restrictions or higher prices resulting from supply constraints and does not necessarily lead onto more resilient options such as hydrogen or ammonia derived from NG or renewable electricity.

For example, ammonia produced from hydrogen, where the hydrogen is produced from NG with CCS, can be considered to be comparable to biofuels in the short term and becomes the lowest cost zero-carbon option out to the 2050s. Furthermore, over time, the production and supply of ammonia can transition from NG to hydrogen produced from renewable energy, providing a more resilient long-term transition pathway.

Although certain pathways look more resilient than others from the perspective of asset longevity, fuel price is the predominant factor that impacts the total cost of operation (TCO). In anticipation of the impacts of the evolution of the global energy demands, and the associated uncertainty of biofuels being available and sustainable, a fuel which can be produced from NG or renewable electricity may offer longer-term advantages that are not seen in the very short term.

From an onboard technology perspective, there is minimal difference, for example, between using biomethanol, e-methanol or NG-methanol; the same applies to LNG (bio-LNG, fossil-LNG and e-LNG).

One of the important barriers for new fuels such as ammonia and hydrogen is the storage and bunkering infrastructure. This means regulatory actors (Class and Flag) need to collaborate with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to enable the uptake.

In addition to investment and technology readiness, community readiness is an important aspect of readiness for change. What may be ready from an investment and technology perspective may not be ready from other stakeholders’ perspectives. Future fuels will be expected to meet not only GHG emission criteria, but also other air pollutant standards (e.g. nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates) as well as contribute to broader sustainability criteria at regional and national levels. READ MORE

Appendix A: ZEVs considered in this paper.
Reference ships
Bio-diesel ICE
Bio-methanol wood ICE
Bio-methanol waste ICE
Bio-LNG ICE
Bio-methanol wood FC
Bio-methanol waste FC
Bio-LNG FC
E-diesel ICE
E-methanol ICE
E-LNG ICE
E-ammonia ICE
E-hydrogen ICE
E-methanol FC
E-LNG FC
E-ammonia FC
E-hydrogen FC
NG-ammonia ICE
NG-hydrogen ICE
NG-ammonia FC
NG-hydrogen FC
Batteries