While I had a sense that LNG-fueled vessels have an edge, I was not sure of the real numbers. This article provides some numbers.
Article suggests multiple sources on the LNG side with
600 LNG capable, plus 600 on order
vs
54 Methanol + 2 Ammonia fueled
Again, the LNG side might have a good idea on the LNG vessels count. But, I would be a little suspect on their count of the competing fuel. As a counterpoint, I know in early 2024 Avance Gas suggested a majority of VLGC newbuilds will have Ammonia-as-fuel option. At the time, Avance Gas had recently sold two VLGC newbuilds with Ammonia-as-fuel option enabled. If those specific vessels were the first two Ammonia-fueled vessels, no additional Ammonia-as-a-fuel vessels have delivered?
Synthetic methane production from green hydrogen (and presumably captured CO2) is an interesting concept. Probably about as practical as coming up with low cost green hydrogen. Both methanol and ammonia have the same green hydrogen requirement.
Blue hydrogen from natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration is probably most cost effective. But still costly compared to natural gas itself.
Storing and handling LNG in a traditional ship is likely to be a challenge. Methanol is easier to handle. Ammonia is not too bad (about like propane) but it does have toxic vapors. Methanol is flammable liquid and requires explosion proof equipment. But energy content is about half that of diesel. So larger tanks required or shorter range.
Yes, green ship fuels will require investment to be widely accepted. It’s great that people are running trials to see which works best and is most cost effective.
–
The two LNG tanks are mounted on top of the vessel. Just guessing, the liquid-to-gas conversion mechanism is on the logo segment and gets piped down to the engine below.
Have not seen an image of a vessel powered with Methanol/Ammonia. But a Google search provided some variations, including this one–
IIRC carbon capture and sequestration does not work - economically.
New Study Says Carbon Must Be Stored For 1000 Years
A study by Cyril Brunner, Zeke Hausfather, and Reto Knutti published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment on November 11, 2024, comes to a startling conclusion. In the abstract of the study, the authors write:
“Carbon dioxide removal is essential for achieving net zero emissions, as it is required to neutralize any residual CO2 emissions. The scientifically recognized definition of carbon dioxide removal requires removed atmospheric CO2 to be stored ‘durably.’ However, it remains unclear what is meant by durably, and interpretations have varied from decades to millennia. Using a reduced-complexity climate model, here we examined the effect of carbon dioxide removal with varying CO2 storage durations.
“We found that storage duration substantially affects whether net zero emissions achieve the desired temperature outcomes. With a typical 100-year storage duration, net zero CO2 emissions with 6 GtCO2 per year residual emissions result in an additional warming of 0.8 °C by 2500 compared to permanent storage, thus putting the internationally agreed temperature limits at risk. Our findings suggest that a CO2 storage period of less than 1000 years (emphasis added) is insufficient for neutralizing remaining fossil CO2 emissions under net zero emissions. These results reinforce the principle that credible neutralization claims using carbon dioxide removal in a net zero framework require balancing emissions with removals of similar atmospheric residence time and storage reservoir — e.g., geological or biogenic.”
Anthropocene Magazine puts the results of the study in the vernacular for those of us who are not climate scientists. It says 1,000-year strategies sequester carbon for about as long as it takes for the carbon to be naturally recycled out of the atmosphere. Shorter term strategies that only hold carbon for 100 years will result in the re-release of that carbon long before the emissions that are being offset would leave the atmosphere naturally. The result of these short-term strategies will be excess, unaccounted for emissions and more warming.
Sharp-eyed readers will notice the typical news story about carbon sequestration seldom mentions how long the carbon will be sequestered — a material flaw in any conversation about direct air capture. The assumption is that once sequestered, it will stay sequestered, but we all know about the word “assume” by now, don’t we? That suggests all the fancy promises we hear about sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and piping it underground are apt to be much too optimistic at best and deliberately misleading at worst.
The researchers are attempting to close a loophole here, but will anyone listen? Certainly, based on past experience, there is little reason to think the fossil fuel crowd wants to delve too deeply into the ramifications of this research. They have been lying to us for 7 decades and are not about to let little things like truth or accuracy interfere with their carbon capture dream.
I agree. Carbon capture has some ifs yet to be resolved.
Carbon capture per se is well developed. It is part of synthetic ammonia from natural gas. Has been done for years. Capture usually uses high boiling amine to for amine carbonates. Releasing the CO2 requires heat and is energy consuming. There are reports of other systems easier to split. Dont know how well they work.
Use of carbon dioxide for better oil recovery is most common use. But is storage there permanent? Or does CO2 escape.
Some rock structures absorb CO2–maybe permanently. But those may be very limited. Injecting into Portland cement concrete may work but CO2 is released to make the Portland cement. Net capture is doubtful.
