Argus spoke with Chil-han Lee, chief executive of hydrogen fuel cell producer Vinssen, on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Maritime 2024 conference and exhibition in Singapore about the prospects for hydrogen fuel cell systems in marine applications and Singapore's position in the marine fuel transition. Edited highlights follow.
Vinssen in December 2023 delivered a hydrogen fuel cell electric propulsion system for a trial project to test its use in maritime applications in Singapore on landing craft the Penguin Tenacity. What are the key aims for the trial?
In this project with our partners Shell, Air Liquide, Seatrium and Penguin we're trialling and collecting data on safety and performance for about a year and a half… how the power consumption and hydrogen consumption is.
The use of hydrogen fuel cells onboard a ship is a new technology, this is a very big challenge for everyone — classification societies, governments and of course the stakeholders involved in terms of safety issues.
Which fuels do you envision using your fuel cell propulsion technology?
We are fuel agnostic actually. As a fuel cell developer we need a supply of hydrogen only. But whether that hydrogen comes from ammonia, methanol or liquid hydrogen on-board, we don't mind. We're collaborating with an ammonia cracking company, Panasia, on a project. We're also working with a methanol reforming company, e1 Marine.
Most of the big companies are investing in green ammonia. Methanol is mainly being driven by Maersk, they are leading the trend. If you imagine ammonia — NH3 — is produced just from nitrogen which is already 70pc in the air, and hydrogen. Methanol — CH3OH — requires capturing carbon dioxide which is more costly; there are more processes in the manufacturing which adds to cost and isn't scalable.
There are a lot of benefits [to ammonia], apart from the toxicity issue. But I believe humans can solve that. So I believe ammonia is the future. Methanol is like a bridge, like LNG. But this is my opinion only.
What do you see as the advantages of hydrogen fuel cells over combustion engines for vessels?
If we change the energy source for marine to either ammonia, methanol or hydrogen, we have to ask the question of how we will use it? Combustion solution or fuel cell solution?
At Vinssen we're trying to be a bridge for proven fuel cell technology already used in cars, aeroplanes and urban air mobility (UAM). We're one of only a handful of companies working to apply fuel cell technology to the maritime sector. We want to try to apply it here because of its efficiency, lightweight [nature] and cheaper cost.
The basic material volume of fuel cells is very low as they're made from just 0.1mm titanium plates and membranes.
I believe fuel cells will be cheaper, although they're currently more expensive than internal combustion engines. Soon the fuel cell price will come down a lot with scale of production. They have the same performance and same generating power. So shipowners will decide to buy the cheaper [option].
When do you expect fuel cells to become cost competitive with combustion engines in shipping?
A large container liner asked the same question to me during this event. I told them, it depends on you! If you order 10 240,000 TU ships now, each with 70MW engine, the price is going to be cheaper than engines because we can buy the raw materials in bulk. Why are they so expensive now? Because people still want to buy small fuel cells, and every time we have to order small quantity sample volumes [of materials]. And that means 10 times the price. But once orders are confirmed to produce bigger sizes of fuel cells, the price will come down considerably.
How is your work contributing to building supply and demand chains for green fuel development?
At the moment I can see a lot of investment in the production of green hydrogen, ammonia or methanol. But there's only been small investment in technology on the demand side. So that's unbalanced at the moment.
I focus on my part, how I can increase efficiency of the fuels we choose to use. Other people focus on producing the green energy. It's all part of the puzzle that needs to come together.
What are your thoughts on Singapore's strategy to position itself as an alternative marine bunkering hub?
Fifteen percent of Singapore's GDP is from the bunkering business. So they have to prepare to bunker every source of new energy — ammonia, methanol, hydrogen, liquid hydrogen, diesel. They have to be able to handle it. Otherwise some ships will pass, and they'll be losing some of their GDP.
In Korea, we're not really in the bunkering business in a big way; we focus on the manufacture of ships or cars.
But Korean regulations are also a problem for us when trying to use hydrogen gas for the maritime or other sectors apart from cars. Actually [there's a] fundamental difference in the way things are regulated — Korea enforces positive regulation, meaning when it's written down it becomes legal. If something isn't regulated then it's illegal. But in Singapore, if there's no regulation, they can do it — it's their own responsibility to get approval by a third party or government regarding safety issues.
Singapore gives us a chance to do something here, so we bring our technology to Singapore to start to show the world. It gives the opportunity for innovation in alternative marine fuels.
