Australian project developer Pilbara Clean Fuels (PCF) and marine fuels firm Oceania Marine Energy are working with classification society RINA on an "end-to-end" low-carbon LNG production and marine bunkering project at Port Hedland in Western Australia that provides a path to zero emissions for the adoption of LNG as a marine fuel.
Argus spoke to RINA technical director Antonios Trakakis and head of decarbonisation and innovation Jan-Paul de Wilde, as well as PCF managing director Robert Malabar, about their project and the overall outlook for maritime decarbonisation on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Maritime 2024 conference and exhibition in Singapore. Edited highlights follow.
RINA is developing a concept for a new dry-bulk ship design with an innovative LNG marine fuel system involving pre-combustion carbon removal and hydrogen production for the Pilbara to Asia dry-bulk trade route. Why have you chosen to pursue this technology to meet upcoming International Maritime Organisation (IMO) targets?
Trakakis: In shipping, what we've been always trying to do is find solutions based on what we have on hand. In our solution we start with LNG, which offers an immediate reduction in GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions. We have arrived at an innovative ship design running on LNG which achieves 10pc less fuel consumption compared to the state of the art dual-fuelled ship of today, which is substantial. And yet at less cost, so we do more with less.
The [IMO] regulation does not invite us to invest in green fuel to find which green fuel we're going to choose. The regulation requires from us to start immediately the reduction of CO2 emissions. If you run on LNG, if you leave aside the methane slip, on a tank-to-wake basis then the GHG savings of LNG are 26-27pc compared with fuel oil. Even if we include the methane slip emissions from modern engines, the reduction is still well above 10pc.
Malabar: Switching to LNG from fuel oil gets you compliant with IMO's requirements to 2030-35. So why do anything more immediately?
How does your design provide a pathway for achieving deeper GHG emissions cuts beyond 2035?
Malabar: Combining low-carbon LNG with onboard hydrogen production through steam methane reforming and carbon capture provides a pathway for dry bulk shipping to comply with IMO 2023 GHG regulations, and also achieve a path to the IMO net zero by 2050 target. We would gradually add blue hydrogen produced onboard to the fuel mix of the vessel.
Our design comes with flexibility. If the trajectory [of the IMO GHG reduction targets] does change then the proportion of hydrogen fuel can be increased earlier.
Trakakis: Our technique employs pre-combustion carbon capture, in that we break the molecule of methane, we preserve the carbon atom as CO2 which we then liquefy and store onboard for disposal onshore, then we use the hydrogen directly onboard as a fuel. So our process is a carbon capture technique.
We're the first ones to introduce and this has been introduced now in a ship design, and we hope soon to see ships built with this. But we want to stress that the use of hydrogen production onboard is not needed before 2035.
Has there been interest in your vessel design from others in the industry?
Trakakis: We have confirmed interest from a prominent Greek owner Maran Dry, Angelicoussis Group and we see that this concept has been adopted by Chinese yards and South Korean yards, with a lot of interest from Chinese yards especially. We hope that by June we'll have the design of many bulk carriers and tankers.
What are your thoughts on some of the other alternative marine fuels being pursued like green methanol and green ammonia?
Trakakis: For us, there is not enough green energy to justify the hype in green fuels [e-fuels like ammonia and methanol]. There is also not the will to sustain the cost of green fuels, which will be the most expensive solution.
All the green energy currently produced on earth is just enough to produce green ammonia and methanol for shipping. Do we really believe that all the green energy on earth will be used for shipping? We also can't deny that green ammonia and methanol present large safety risks.
Biofuels is a good solution but will play mostly a role for existing ships, and we don't expect biofuels to be available in the quantities we need going forward, as there's going to be huge competition with other industries.
Decarbonisation is not only a problem of shipping, which is only around 3pc of total emissions. It's a global problem. What are the others going to do? I don't hear other industries talking about ammonia and methanol. Cement, fertiliser, steel, power are going to hugely depend on carbon capture.
Does your vessel design technology present a lower safety risk compared with using methanol or ammonia?
Trakakis: Absolutely
Malabar: From the oil and gas perspective, the way they deal with more hazardous material is to minimise the time you actually have it, minimise the inventory of it, hence we produce hydrogen onboard as you need it and use it almost immediately.
How important is it that the industry develops a global mechanism to close the cost gap between conventional and alternative fuels, maybe through a carbon tax on shipping?
De Wilde: I think costs are the elephant in the room here. We're always talking about technical solutions and I think they're already there. There are no insurmountable regulatory and technical issues. As soon as there's money on the table, things will decarbonise as soon as we want to. All the money has to be raised either through levies or taxes to close the price gap with traditional fuels.
What role can classification societies like RINA play in building collaboration within the maritime sector?
De Wilde: RINA is principally a classification society. But the role of classification societies goes beyond survey and certification of ships nowadays and our customers are expecting a bit more from us. In that role we're also actively participating in finding solutions, so hence our engagement with other industry partners. We have to propose pragmatic solutions, not just solutions that work on paper but solutions that are immediately workable.
We have to stress that the choice of fuel is eventually up to the shipping industry as a whole. What we're doing in this context is promoting pragmatic and immediately available solutions. But we as RINA are not in a position to push any solutions to the industry.
