Towards zero emission shipping

Is it just me or I just find it hard to swallow that the worst industry is going to pass all others and be zero emissions.

It could be “Only you”.
Not many people are a negative to everything as you.

I think the 2 sides of this argument are dreamland and reality
I fully expect you to post this headline one day…
By 2050 ships will float across the world on negative gravity machine and pushed by solar winds so they meet their zero emissions target

Aren’t they already doing that in Singapore?

Shippers and shipowners share costs of using Biofuel yo reduce GHG emission:

Isn’t that a kind of Mexican soup?

very hard to get anyone to define what biofuel is and what its carbon footprint actually is

Hyundai has obtained class approval in principle for Ammonia fueled ships:
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/hyundai-mipo-gets-approval-for-ammonia-fueled-ships-from-lloyds-register/

While others are looking at Hydrogen as the future fuel for ships:

Maersk Drilling has a different idea of how to reach the goal of “Zero Emission”:

Even Del Monte is in on the act, with 6 new fuel efficient vessels for cooler container in the making;

The first ship, M/V Del Monte Gold, has already left the yard and presently passing through the Panama Canal:
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:6181068/mmsi:356211000/imo:9849643/vessel:DEL_MONTE_GOLD

LNG is NOT the future marine fuel but a blind track according to the latest IMO study:


May meet the present requirement for SOX and NOX reduction, but not a carbon free solution.
1 Like

all true and was never a secret but just seems more subterfuge from the shipping industry over a long period of time to do nothing and have excuses for why they have done very little?

I feel like with maritime there is a big push to conflate particulates and SOx/NOx with “pollution” in general. Any clean low-sulfur hydrocarbon is going to be an improvement in that regard, especially compared to pre-2020 HFO, but if GLOBAL climate change is the issue and not localized smog, you are talking CO2 and just can’t use a fossil fuel period. I see the most environmentalist people imaginable who still get this wrong and say “one ship pollutes more than 50 million cars” because they are talking about SOx only and don’t understand that ships are comparatively quite green due to the efficiency per ton-mile.

yes ton per mile they beat everything but if you live near a port your air quality is horrendous.
LPG would fix that but not the Co2 issue if that is the issue?

Yeah exactly. Best for the world out of any fossil option but sure not a good neighbor.

Looks like the Governments is to blame for a lot of the GHG emission from ships;
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/national-governments-found-to-have-a-much-greater-responsibility-for-shipping-emissions-than-previously-thought/

It’s a matter of accounting, not blame for emissions.

the IMO had had to make simplified estimates that have been shown to underestimate the level of emissions that count as ‘domestic’ shipping and fall within the responsibilities of individual governments to manage.

It isn’t some conspiracy to “conflate”, it is a physical reality. If we increase combustion temperature in order to increase efficiency and reduce particulates we increase NOx emissions.

SOx is bad news but we have greatly reduced that part of the problem but NOx has about 265 times greater “global warming potential” than CO2. We burn more fuel in order to reduce NOx but that increases CO2 emissions. Burning LNG will reduce soot but it may also increase NOx.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiMufy-8JDrAhVvdt8KHZPkCbUQFjABegQIChAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheicct.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpublications%2FClimate_implications_LNG_marinefuel_01282020.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0aybmFK230IkUyEEauBIjE

Is “green Ammonia” the future fuel for ships? Some think so:


And Australia MAY be the place to produce it:

It is Sunny, Flat and Windful. (And so is the people) :grin:
1 Like