IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i24p8502-d704314.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Alternative Fuels for Shipping in Terms of Lifecycle Energy and Cost

Author

Listed:
  • Li Chin Law

    (Cambridge Centre for Advanced Research and Education in Singapore (CARES), CREATE Tower, 1 Create Way, Singapore 138602, Singapore
    School of Chemical Engineering, Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Nibong Tebal 14300, Penang, Malaysia)

  • Beatrice Foscoli

    (Cambridge Centre for Advanced Research and Education in Singapore (CARES), CREATE Tower, 1 Create Way, Singapore 138602, Singapore)

  • Epaminondas Mastorakos

    (Cambridge Centre for Advanced Research and Education in Singapore (CARES), CREATE Tower, 1 Create Way, Singapore 138602, Singapore
    Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK)

  • Stephen Evans

    (Cambridge Centre for Advanced Research and Education in Singapore (CARES), CREATE Tower, 1 Create Way, Singapore 138602, Singapore
    Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK)

Abstract

Decarbonization of the shipping sector is inevitable and can be made by transitioning into low- or zero-carbon marine fuels. This paper reviews 22 potential pathways, including conventional Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) marine fuel as a reference case, “blue” alternative fuel produced from natural gas, and “green” fuels produced from biomass and solar energy. Carbon capture technology (CCS) is installed for fossil fuels (HFO and liquefied natural gas (LNG)). The pathways are compared in terms of quantifiable parameters including (i) fuel mass, (ii) fuel volume, (iii) life cycle (Well-To-Wake—WTW) energy intensity, (iv) WTW cost, (v) WTW greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, and (vi) non-GHG emissions, estimated from the literature and ASPEN HYSYS modelling. From an energy perspective, renewable electricity with battery technology is the most efficient route, albeit still impractical for long-distance shipping due to the low energy density of today’s batteries. The next best is fossil fuels with CCS (assuming 90% removal efficiency), which also happens to be the lowest cost solution, although the long-term storage and utilization of CO 2 are still unresolved. Biofuels offer a good compromise in terms of cost, availability, and technology readiness level (TRL); however, the non-GHG emissions are not eliminated. Hydrogen and ammonia are among the worst in terms of overall energy and cost needed and may also need NOx clean-up measures. Methanol from LNG needs CCS for decarbonization, while methanol from biomass does not, and also seems to be a good candidate in terms of energy, financial cost, and TRL. The present analysis consistently compares the various options and is useful for stakeholders involved in shipping decarbonization.

Suggested Citation

  • Li Chin Law & Beatrice Foscoli & Epaminondas Mastorakos & Stephen Evans, 2021. "A Comparison of Alternative Fuels for Shipping in Terms of Lifecycle Energy and Cost," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-32, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:24:p:8502-:d:704314
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/24/8502/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/24/8502/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ren, Jingzheng & Lützen, Marie, 2017. "Selection of sustainable alternative energy source for shipping: Multi-criteria decision making under incomplete information," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1003-1019.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vinicius Andrade dos Santos & Patrícia Pereira da Silva & Luís Manuel Ventura Serrano, 2022. "The Maritime Sector and Its Problematic Decarbonization: A Systematic Review of the Contribution of Alternative Fuels," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-30, May.
    2. Li Chin Law & Epaminondas Mastorakos & Stephen Evans, 2022. "Estimates of the Decarbonization Potential of Alternative Fuels for Shipping as a Function of Vessel Type, Cargo, and Voyage," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-26, October.
    3. Groppi, Daniele & Nastasi, Benedetto & Prina, Matteo Giacomo, 2022. "The EPLANoptMAC model to plan the decarbonisation of the maritime transport sector of a small island," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 254(PA).
    4. Tino Vidović & Jakov Šimunović & Gojmir Radica & Željko Penga, 2023. "Systematic Overview of Newly Available Technologies in the Green Maritime Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-26, January.
    5. Kanchiralla, Fayas Malik & Brynolf, Selma & Olsson, Tobias & Ellis, Joanne & Hansson, Julia & Grahn, Maria, 2023. "How do variations in ship operation impact the techno-economic feasibility and environmental performance of fossil-free fuels? A life cycle study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 350(C).
    6. Chountalas, Theofanis D. & Founti, Maria & Tsalavoutas, Ioannis, 2023. "Evaluation of biofuel effect on performance & emissions of a 2-stroke marine diesel engine using on-board measurements," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    7. Andres Laasma & Riina Otsason & Ulla Tapaninen & Olli-Pekka Hilmola, 2022. "Evaluation of Alternative Fuels for Coastal Ferries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-13, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Lihong & Ren, Jingzheng, 2018. "Multi-attribute sustainability evaluation of alternative aviation fuels based on fuzzy ANP and fuzzy grey relational analysis," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 176-186.
    2. Wu, Yunna & Xu, Chuanbo & Zhang, Ting, 2018. "Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A case in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 1227-1239.
    3. Abdel-Basset, Mohamed & Gamal, Abduallah & Chakrabortty, Ripon K. & Ryan, Michael J., 2021. "Evaluation approach for sustainable renewable energy systems under uncertain environment: A case study," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 1073-1095.
    4. Ilbahar, Esra & Kahraman, Cengiz & Cebi, Selcuk, 2022. "Risk assessment of renewable energy investments: A modified failure mode and effect analysis based on prospect theory and intuitionistic fuzzy AHP," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PA).
    5. Indre Siksnelyte & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Dalia Streimikiene & Deepak Sharma, 2018. "An Overview of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Dealing with Sustainable Energy Development Issues," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-21, October.
    6. Kong, Qingxu & Jiang, Changmin & Ng, Adolf K.Y., 2021. "The economic impacts of restricting black carbon emissions on cargo shipping in the Polar Code Area," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 159-176.
    7. Wang, Tingsong & Cheng, Peiyue & Zhen, Lu, 2023. "Green development of the maritime industry: Overview, perspectives, and future research opportunities," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    8. Zheng, Wei & Li, Bo & Song, Dongping, 2022. "The optimal green strategies for competitive ocean carriers under potential regulation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(2), pages 840-856.
    9. Hu, Hongtao & Yuan, Jun & Nian, Victor, 2019. "Development of a multi-objective decision-making method to evaluate correlated decarbonization measures under uncertainty – The example of international shipping," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 148-157.
    10. Trivyza, Nikoletta L. & Rentizelas, Athanasios & Theotokatos, Gerasimos & Boulougouris, Evangelos, 2022. "Decision support methods for sustainable ship energy systems: A state-of-the-art review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    11. Bortoluzzi, Mirian & Correia de Souza, Celso & Furlan, Marcelo, 2021. "Bibliometric analysis of renewable energy types using key performance indicators and multicriteria decision models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    12. Indre Siksnelyte & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, 2019. "Achievements of the European Union Countries in Seeking a Sustainable Electricity Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-16, June.
    13. Wu, Yunna & Wang, Jing & Ji, Shaoyu & Song, Zixin, 2020. "Renewable energy investment risk assessment for nations along China’s Belt & Road Initiative: An ANP-cloud model method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    14. Young-Tae Chang & Denise Danao, 2017. "Green Shipping Practices of Shipping Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-23, May.
    15. Atak, Üstün & Aydın, Umut & Menekşe, Akın, 2023. "An integrated decision-making approach under spherical fuzzy environment for selection of vessel main engines," Innovation and Green Development, Elsevier, vol. 2(2).
    16. Svanberg, Martin & Ellis, Joanne & Lundgren, Joakim & Landälv, Ingvar, 2018. "Renewable methanol as a fuel for the shipping industry," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1217-1228.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:24:p:8502-:d:704314. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.