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:
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 âpollutionâ 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 canât use a fossil fuel period. I see the most environmentalist people imaginable who still get this wrong and say âone ship pollutes more than 50 million carsâ because they are talking about SOx only and donât 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/
Itâs 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 âdomesticâ shipping and fall within the responsibilities of individual governments to manage.
It isnât some conspiracy to âconflateâ, 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 âglobal warming potentialâ 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.
Is âgreen Ammoniaâ the future fuel for ships? Some think so:
Careful! Only Kiwis are allowed to poke the borax at the Australians.
As scrubbers receive âbad pressâ container ships overtake tankers as the most scrubber fitted type of ships:
20200813containerships_overtake_crudeoil_tankers_scrubber
Retrofitted scrubbers are not exactly âprettyâ:
This is how they look on the inside
As the number of engineers onboard continues to be reduced.
One more experimental Marine Fuel:
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/korean-effort-to-commercialize-bio-heavy-oil-as-marine-fuel#:~:text=A%20new%20cooperation%20of%20South,reduction%20of%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions.&text=Based%20on%20the%20successful%20trial,carbon%20shipping%20option%20for%20customers.
But Hydrogen is still leading the field:
Is LNG a step towards shipping decarbonizing?:
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/lng-and-the-pathway-to-shipping-industry-decarbonisation/
A step maybe, but not the final solution IMNSHO
Maybe this will make LNG into a âZero Carbonâ fuel option sometime in the future?:
Now even Academics gets involved in finding the right fuel to power ships in the future:
Maybe for the better. The claims of âsustainabilityâ and âcarbon neutralâ seem to have as much or more of the marketing department than applied science.
Let them determine the technical details then let the politicians and shipowners fight it out as to what is the âright fuelâ for the moment.
Goof news!! First carbon free steelmaking starts in Northern Sweden:
Does that mean that we will not hear the argument that it is no use making anything made from steel carbon free?
