Shipping is a , and remains one of the few sectors where emissions are growing instead of falling. It has yet to find a sure-fire way to decarbonise. Last week might mark the beginning of a turning point. On 24 August, Maersk, the world鈥檚 biggest shipping company, it had ordered eight ships capable of running on both normal oil-based fuel and a type of alcohol, methanol.
These won鈥檛 be the first ships running on methanol 鈥� there are about 20 globally already 鈥� but they will be by far the biggest. They would be cargo ships capable of holding 16,000 containers, large even by the gargantuan scales of modern sea transport. Importantly, Maersk has promised to not just have the shipping equivalent of a 鈥�4K-ready鈥� TV, but to run them on methanol rather than oil 鈥渁s soon as possible鈥�.
The step by the Danish shipping firm may be a big moment for cleaning up shipping, and the company has paid careful attention to detail on how the methanol will be made. 鈥淚 was pleasantly surprised. It鈥檚 an impressive pace and scale,鈥� says at the International Council on Clean Transportation, a US non-profit organisation.
Advertisement
So why methanol, and what impact could it have if more widely adopted in shipping? When burned, it emits less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than fuel made from oil, and that CO2 can theoretically be cancelled out by the way the methanol is made. It also hugely cuts air pollutants.
Maersk disregarded generating methanol using fossil fuels 鈥� a method that can be even more polluting than today鈥檚 shipping fuels. Instead, it is looking at two methods for producing methanol. The first is 鈥渆-methanol鈥� using green hydrogen and CO2 removed from the air or a power plant. The second is 鈥渂io-methanol鈥� made from biomass, such as waste from landfill, crops or trees. Morten Bo Christiansen at Maersk sees biomethanol leading the way initially because it is cheaper, being eclipsed in 10 to 15 years鈥� time by e-methanol because it can reach larger scale.
Making enough of either, and making it cheap enough, is going to be hard. Both cost more than conventional fuel. Even in a best case scenario, biomethanol is at least twice as expensive as fossil fuels, says Christiansen. . Maersk thinks it will need between 300,000 and 400,000 tonnes for its eight ships, which are due for delivery in 2024. Comer illustrates the scale of the longer term challenge. He estimates that the whole Maersk fleet would require between about 20 and 24 million tonnes of methanol, which is about half as energy dense as today鈥檚 fuel. The world only makes 90 million tonnes of methanol annually at the moment, almost all of it from fossil fuel.
A leading alternative clean maritime fuel is 鈥済reen ammonia鈥�, which is cheaper and easier to make, says at non-profit organisation Transport & Environment in Brussels, Belgium.
Christiansen explains why Maersk chose methanol instead: 鈥淚f you look at the matureness of the technologies, and not least the operational and safety aspects, that is where methanol is a far, far better fuel.鈥� Ammonia is more toxic than methanol and, as a gas rather than liquid, is harder to handle. Vitally, ships with ammonia engines aren鈥檛 expected to arrive until 2023 or 2024. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 have ships running on ammonia,鈥� says at University College London. 鈥淲ith methanol, you can do it now.鈥�
Unfortunately, Maersk remains a rare example of a company in the shipping industry looking to leapfrog 鈥渂etter鈥� fossil fuels for genuinely low-carbon fuels. Its French and German rivals are mainly pursuing liquefied natural gas (LNG) instead, encouraged partly by and regulations. Yet methane leaks from LNG engines and gas wells mean the fuel . 鈥淚t鈥檚 a dead end, a distraction,鈥� says Smith.
鈥淭his is an emergency situation,鈥� says Christiansen about climate change. 鈥淲hen you鈥檙e in an emergency, you鈥檙e not looking for marginal improvement, you鈥檙e looking to solve the problem. We simply don鈥檛 believe in another wave of fossil fuels.鈥�
