Repository logo
 

A comparison of alternative fuels for shipping in terms of lifecycle energy and cost

Simple item page
cam.issuedOnline2021-12-16
dc.contributor.authorLaw, LC
dc.contributor.authorFoscoli, B
dc.contributor.authorMastorakos, E
dc.contributor.authorEvans, S
dc.contributor.orcidMastorakos, Epaminondas [0000-0001-8245-5188]
dc.contributor.orcidEvans, Stephen [0000-0003-1757-6842]
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-05T16:29:08Z
dc.date.available2022-01-05T16:29:08Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.date.updated2022-01-05T16:29:07Z
dc.description.abstract<jats:p>Decarbonization of the shipping sector is inevitable and can be made by transitioning into low- or zero-carbon marine fuels. This paper reviews 22 potential pathways, including conventional Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) marine fuel as a reference case, “blue” alternative fuel produced from natural gas, and “green” fuels produced from biomass and solar energy. Carbon capture technology (CCS) is installed for fossil fuels (HFO and liquefied natural gas (LNG)). The pathways are compared in terms of quantifiable parameters including (i) fuel mass, (ii) fuel volume, (iii) life cycle (Well-To-Wake—WTW) energy intensity, (iv) WTW cost, (v) WTW greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, and (vi) non-GHG emissions, estimated from the literature and ASPEN HYSYS modelling. From an energy perspective, renewable electricity with battery technology is the most efficient route, albeit still impractical for long-distance shipping due to the low energy density of today’s batteries. The next best is fossil fuels with CCS (assuming 90% removal efficiency), which also happens to be the lowest cost solution, although the long-term storage and utilization of CO2 are still unresolved. Biofuels offer a good compromise in terms of cost, availability, and technology readiness level (TRL); however, the non-GHG emissions are not eliminated. Hydrogen and ammonia are among the worst in terms of overall energy and cost needed and may also need NOx clean-up measures. Methanol from LNG needs CCS for decarbonization, while methanol from biomass does not, and also seems to be a good candidate in terms of energy, financial cost, and TRL. The present analysis consistently compares the various options and is useful for stakeholders involved in shipping decarbonization.</jats:p>
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Research Foundation Singapore
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.79491
dc.identifier.eissn1996-1073
dc.identifier.issn1996-1073
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/332044
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherMDPI AG
dc.publisher.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14248502
dc.subjectmaritime
dc.subjectmarine fuel
dc.subjectalternative fuels
dc.subjectdecarbonization
dc.subjecthydrogen
dc.subjectammonia
dc.subjectmethanol
dc.titleA comparison of alternative fuels for shipping in terms of lifecycle energy and cost
dc.typeArticle
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-12-13
prism.issueIdentifier24
prism.publicationNameEnergies
prism.volume14
pubs.funder-project-idNational Research Foundation (C4T Emerging Opportunities Fund)
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.3390/en14248502

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
energies-14-08502.xml
Size:
8.22 KB
Format:
Extensible Markup Language
Description:
Bibliographic metadata
Licence
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Download
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
additional-files.zip
Size:
70.15 KB
Format:
ZIP file
Description:
Supporting information
Licence
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Download
Thumbnail Image
Name:
energies-14-08502.pdf
Size:
6.81 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Licence
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Download

Collections

Jisc Publications Router