MSC scraps carbon offsets, focuses on reducing CO2
Switzerland-based MSC Cruises has decided not to pursue carbon offsetting and instead focus on directly reducing its carbon footprint.
In 2019, the leisure cruise company said it would invest in carbon offsets to meet future emissions regulations, but it has now decided to invest in research and development of alternative marine fuels, such as ammonia and hydrogen. MSC's vessels travel in the North Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean, in addition to cruising in South America, the Middle East and Asia.
EU proposals to include marine fuel CO2 emissions in its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and cut marine fuel greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity in EU waters could incentivize MSC to speed up its transition to alternative marine fuels.
"A core goal of MSC Cruises is to meet the industry target of 40pc improvement in emissions intensity by 2030, compared to a 2008 baseline," the company said, referring to an International Maritime Organization's (IMO) directive.
MSC will take delivery of three new LNG-powered vessels. The first one, MSC World Europa will arrive in 2022, and the other two in 2023 and 2024. MSC will also test fuel cells which can covert LNG into electricity and "are much more efficient than conventional engines". MSC Cruises also has nine of its 17 vessels outfitted with exhaust scrubbers.
Before Covid-19, MSC was expecting to burn around 679,500t of marine fuel in 2020, but it burned 290,596t, emitting 908,393t of CO2. In April 2020 all of MSC's 17 ships were placed in layup and only two became operational later in 2020. By comparison, the company burned 650,306t of marine fuel in 2019 and emitted 2mn t of CO2.
Related news posts
US gas industry pins hopes on AI power demand
US gas industry pins hopes on AI power demand
New York, 1 May (Argus) — US natural gas producers and pipelines have pivoted almost in unison this year to talking up what they see as one of the strongest bullish cases for gas this decade: surging electricity demand from yet-to-be-built data centers to power artificial intelligence software. EQT, the largest US gas producer by volume, in an investor presentation last week called growing data center demand the "cornerstone" to the "natural gas bull case." Combining its own research with data from the US Energy Information Administration, the gas giant forecast an increase in gas demand of 10 Bcf/d (283mn m3/d) by 2030 to generate electricity, mostly to run data centers. Its more aggressive data center build-out scenario envisions a whopping 18 Bcf/d increase in gas demand through 2030. Total US gas production is currently about 100 Bcf/d. Kinder Morgan, one of the largest US gas pipeline operators, this month forecast 20pc of US power being gobbled up by data centers in 2030, up from a 2.5pc share in 2022. Cobbling together projections from several consultancies and financial advisories, the company said the electricity needed to run artificial intelligence software alone will comprise 15pc of US power demand by 2030. If just 40pc of that demand is met by gas, that would represent an increase in gas demand of 7-10 Bcf/d, it said. This is roughly in line with the high end of US bank Tudor Pickering Holt's forecast for gas demand to power data centers through 2030 (1.3-8.5 Bcf/d) and well above Goldman Sachs' and consultancy Enverus' projections of 3.3 Bcf/d and 2 Bcf/d, respectively. New tech, old problems Separating the wide ranges of these projections is the highly speculative nature of forecasting demand years into the future for competing energy sources to power next-generation technology. But the major upside and downside risks, analysts say, concern the more humdrum challenges of permitting and building out energy infrastructure. Goldman Sachs expects 28GW, or 60pc, of the generation capacity needed to power new data centers through 2030 will come from natural gas — 9GW from combined cycle gas turbines and 19GW from gas peaker plants. But with an average lag of four years from the time a gas transmission project is announced to the time it enters service, to say nothing of the high probability of litigation being brought by environmentalists and landowners, construction and permitting timelines are "the most top of mind constraint for natural gas," the bank said. Indeed, litigation and opposition from state regulators have ultimately led developers to call off several interstate pipeline projects in the eastern US in recent years. The exception to the rule, Equitrans' 2 Bcf/d Mountain Valley Pipeline is moving forward only because congressional action allowed it to bypass federal permitting hurdles. This is a particular problem for the gas industry's hopes of exploiting the data center boom, as a large share of future data centers are slated to be built in the southeast US, far from the major US gas fields. New data centers representing 2 Bcf/d of gas demand in Georgia probably requires a new pipeline into the southeast, FactSet senior energy analyst Connor McLean said. Southeast premium A significant data-center buildout in the southeast without new pipelines could put upward pressure on regional gas prices, McLean said. This could exacerbate the effects of what has become perhaps the most prominent bullish case for US gas: a massive build-out of LNG export terminals along the US Gulf coast. With new export terminals pulling increasing volumes of gas south along the Transcontinental gas pipeline to super-chill and ship overseas in the coming years, the build-out in data centers will likely produce "an even bigger deficit in that southeast (gas) market," EQT chief financial officer Jeremy Knop told investors last week. "We think that market really, in time, becomes the most premium market in the country," he said. By Julian Hast Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
G7 coal exit goal puts focus on Germany, Japan and US
G7 coal exit goal puts focus on Germany, Japan and US
London, 1 May (Argus) — A G7 countries commitment to phase out "unabated coal power generation" by 2035 focuses attention on Germany, Japan and the US for charting a concrete coal-exit path, but provides some flexibility on timelines. The G7 commitment does not mark a departure from the previous course and provides a caveat by stating the unabated coal exit will take place by 2035 or "in a timeline consistent with keeping a limit of 1.5°C temperature rise within reach, in line with countries' net-zero pathways". The G7 countries are Italy — this year's host — Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the UK and the US. The EU is a non-enumerated member. The announcement calls for accelerating "efforts towards the phase-out of unabated coal power generation", but does not suggest policy action. It calls for reducing "as much as possible", providing room for manoeuvre to Germany, Japan and the US. Coal exports are not mentioned in the communique. Canada and the US are net coal exporters. France, which predominantly uses nuclear power in its generation mix is already scheduled to close its two remaining coal plants by the end of this year. The UK will shut its last coal-fired plant Ratcliffe in September . Italy has ended its emergency "coal maximisation plan" and has been less reliant on coal-fired generation, except in Sardinia . The country has 6GW of installed coal-fired power capacity, with state-controlled utility Enel operating 4.7GW of this. The operator said it wanted to shut all its coal-fired plants by 2027. Canada announced a coal exit by 2030 in 2016 and currently has 4.7GW of operational coal-fired capacity. In 2021-23, the country imported an average of 5.7mn t of coal each year, mainly from the US. Germany Germany has a legal obligation to shut down all its coal plants by 2038, but the country's nuclear fleet retirement in 2023, coupled with LNG shortages after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, led to an increase in coal use. Germany pushed for an informal target to phase out coal by 2030, but the grid regulator Bnetza's timeline still anticipates the last units going offline in 2038. The G7 agreement puts into questions how the country will treat its current reliance on coal as a backup fuel. The grid regulator requires "systematically relevant" coal plants to remain available as emergency power sources until the end of March 2031 . Germany generated 9.5TWh of electricity from hard-coal fired generation so far this year, according to European grid operator association Entso-E. Extending the current rate of generation, Germany's theoretical coal burn could reach about 8.8mn t. Japan Japan's operational coal capacity has increased since 2022, with over 3GW of new units connected to the grid, according to the latest analysis by Global Energy Monitor (GEM). Less than 5pc of Japan's operational coal fleet has a planned retirement year, and these comprise the oldest and least efficient plants. Coal capacity built in the last decade, following the Fukushima disaster, is unlikely to receive a retirement date without a country-wide policy that calls for a coal exit. Returning nuclear fleet capacity is curtailing any additional coal-fired generation in Japan , but it will have to build equivalent capacity to replace its 53GW of coal generation. And, according to IEA figures, Japan will only boost renewables up to 24pc until 2030. The US The US operates the third-largest coal-power generation fleet in the world, with 212GW operational capacity. Only 37pc of this capacity has a known retirement date before 2031. After 2031, the US will have to retire coal-fired capacity at a rate of 33GW/yr for four years to be able to meet the 2035 phase-out deadline. By Ashima Sharma Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Larger EU H2 bank auction could still clear below €1/kg
Larger EU H2 bank auction could still clear below €1/kg
Hamburg, 1 May (Argus) — The EU will launch a second European hydrogen bank auction later this year, ramping up the budget from a pilot for which results were published on 30 April. A bigger budget will allow more projects to win subsidies, but developers might still have to bid at or below €1/kg to stand a chance of being successful. As a result of the pilot, the EU will subsidise seven renewable hydrogen projects in Spain, Portugal, Norway and Finland with a total €720mn ($768mn), to be disbursed as a fixed premium per kg produced over a 10-year period. The European Commission picked the projects that requested the least support and the auction cleared at €0.48/kg, far below the bid ceiling of €4.50/kg . A second auction later this year is slated to have a much larger budget of around €2.2bn. This could open the door for projects with less competitive bids, but developers may still have to bid for less than €1/kg, data released by the commission suggest. If another €2.2bn had been available to the "next best projects" in the pilot, bringing the total budget to nearly €3bn, the auction would have cleared at around €1/kg, the data indicate. Spanish projects would have been the main beneficiaries of the larger budget. But it would have also unlocked subsidies for projects that did not field any winners in the pilot, including Germany, France, Austria and the Netherlands. This suggests that projects in these countries might be able to get subsidies in the second auction. That said, some German projects that participated in the pilot are bound to get funds from a separate €350mn budget set aside by Berlin , meaning they could not take part in the next round. In any case, the second round could clear even far below €1/kg, if developers revise their bidding strategies now they have indications from the pilot on how low they might have to go. Such signposts were not available for the first round, other than from a Danish auction last year with similar parameters — which had indicated that winning bids in the hydrogen bank pilot were likely to stay well below €1/kg . The commission plans to tighten some of the eligibility criteria for the second round , which might prevent some projects from participating again. A draft document suggests winners of the second round would have to commission their plants within three years, down from five in the pilot. And developers would have to provide a completion guarantee equivalent to 10pc of the requested subsidies, up from 4pc. The second auction will also have a lower bid ceiling of €3.50/kg based on the draft, although this is highly unlikely to be tested by the successful submissions. Budget uncertainties While previous commission comments suggested a budget of around €2.2bn for the second round, the draft rules leave the exact funds open. The commission initially earmarked €800mn for the pilot and might top up the second round with the unused €80mn. It plans to set an unspecified slice of the budget aside exclusively for projects targeting offtake for maritime transport, adding a degree of complexity. Austria is planning to top up the second auction with €400mn , while others, such as Belgium , could follow suit. Moving the needle? While bids in the pilot auction came in well below the ceiling — and are bound to do so again in the second round — the funds will only be enough to support a fraction of the EU's 10mn t/yr renewable hydrogen production target by 2030. The pilot auction will subsidise 1.58mn t, or 158,000 t/yr, of production from the seven selected projects — assuming the support they secured will be enough to get them built as planned. If the next best projects from the pilot were to repeat their bids in a €2.2bn second round successfully, the round could support close to 300,000 t/yr. While this would lift subsidised output across both auctions to nearly 460,000 t/yr, it would still be less than 5pc of the 10mn t/yr target. Assuming developers that missed out in the first round shoot lower in the second and the volume-weighted average of successful bids is in line with the pilot's €0.45/kg, 480,000 t/yr could be subsidised. Together with the pilot, this would yield 640,000 t/yr, or just over 6pc of the EU's target, although extra funds from Germany, Austria and potentially others could lift this further. The EU hopes this initial operating support, combined with subsidies for capital expenses, infrastructure developments and demand-side initiatives, will be enough to kickstart the sector and other projects will follow even without hydrogen bank support. By Stefan Krumpelmann Renewable H2 projects selected in hydrogen bank pilot auction Project Coordinator Project location H2 output t/yr Electrolyser capacity MW Bid price €/kg Requested funding mn € eNRG Lahti Nordic Ren-Gas Finland 12,200 90 0.37 45.2 El Alamillo H2 Benbros Energy Spain 6,500 60 0.38 24.6 Grey2Green-II Petrogal Portugal 21,600 200 0.39 84.2 Hysencia Angus Spain 1,700 35 0.48 8.1 Skiga Skiga Norway 16,900 117 0.48 81.3 Catalina Renato PtX Spain 48,000 500 0.48 230.5 MP2X Madoqua Power2X Portugal 51,100 500 0.48 245.2 - European Commission Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
New US rule may let some shippers swap railroads
New US rule may let some shippers swap railroads
Washington, 30 April (Argus) — US rail regulators today issued a final rule designed to help customers switch railroads in cases of poor rail service, but it is already drawing mixed reviews. Reciprocal switching, which allows freight shippers or receivers captive to a single railroad to access to an alternate carrier, has been allowed under US Surface Transportation Board (STB) rules. But shippers had not used existing STB rules to petition for reciprocal switching in 35 years, prompting regulators to revise rules to encourage shippers to pursue switching while helping resolve service problems. "The rule adopted today has broken new ground in the effort to provide competitive options in an extraordinarily consolidated rail industry," said outgoing STB chairman Martin Oberman. The five-person board unanimously approved a rule that would allow the board to order a reciprocal switching agreement if a facility's rail service falls below specified levels. Orders would be for 3-5 years. "Given the repeated episodes of severe service deterioration in recent years, and the continuing impediments to robust and consistent rail service despite the recent improvements accomplished by Class I carriers, the board has chosen to focus on making reciprocal switching available to shippers who have suffered service problems over an extended period of time," Oberman said today. STB commissioner Robert Primus voted to approve the rule, but also said it did not go far enough. The rule adopted today is "unlikely to accomplish what the board set out to do" since it does not cover freight moving under contract, he said. "I am voting for the final rule because something is better than nothing," Primus said. But he said the rule also does nothing to address competition in the rail industry. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) is reviewing the 154-page final rule, but carriers have been historically opposed to reciprocal switching proposals. "Railroads have been clear about the risks of expanded switching and the resulting slippery slope toward unjustified market intervention," AAR said. But the trade group was pleased that STB rejected "previous proposals that amounted to open access," which is a broad term for proposals that call for railroads to allow other carriers to operate over their tracks. The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association declined to comment but has indicated it does not expect the rule to have an appreciable impact on shortline traffic, service or operations. Today's rule has drawn mixed reactions from some shipper groups. The National Industrial Transportation League (NITL), which filed its own reciprocal switching proposal in 2011, said it was encouraged by the collection of service metrics required under the rule. But "it is disheartened by its narrow scope as it does not appear to apply to the vast majority of freight rail traffic that moves under contracts or is subject to commodity exemptions," said NITL executive director Nancy O'Liddy, noting it was a departure from the group's original petition which sought switching as a way to facilitate railroad economic competitiveness. The Chlorine Institute said, in its initial analysis, that it does not "see significant benefit for our shipper members since it excludes contract traffic which covers the vast majority of chlorine and other relevant chemical shipments." By Abby Caplan Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Business intelligence reports
Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.
Learn more