The latest data from Sea-LNG, an industry coalition lobbying for the use of LNG in shipping, show that LNG-fuelled ships may be more cost effective at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than methanol or ammonia.
Sea-LNG estimates the cost of LNG at $9/GJ, grey methanol at $21/GJ and grey ammonia at $23/GJ, according to data from the Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping.
Considering the lifecycle emissions of alternative marine fuels, the coalition argues that grey ammonia and grey methanol — produced mainly from natural gas, often LNG — have 47pc and 14pc higher emissions than very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO), whereas LNG has 23pc reduction on emissions compared with VLSFO.
It reiterates the goals of maritime regulations, such as Fuel Maritime, to gradually lower GHG emissions by 80pc by 2050.
Sea-LNG states that to reach the same reduction in emissions, grey methanol and grey ammonia would have to be blended with high quantities of green ammonia and greenmethanol — which it assesses as two and a half times more expensive than their grey counterparts, according to the Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Center.
E-fuels — which it pegs at 2.5 times more expensive than conventional marine fuels — and biofuels — which it pegs at four times the price of LNG — are dismissed as too expensive, even when factoring in lower future costs for alternative fuels because of larger production and wider use.
Sea-LNG also points out that existing supply chains’ infrastructure would not require redesign as it already supports LNG, whereas alternative fuels would have to add a change of infrastructure into their future cost overviews.
By Anya Fielding