E-methanol more economical than biofuels, e-LNG - Liquid Wind study
E-methanol was identified as a more economical alternative to fossil fuels, than biofuels or renewable LNG, in a white paper authored by e-methanol producer Liquid Wind.
PHOTO: Illustration of FlagshipONE e-methanol project by Ørsted. Liquid Wind
Shipping companies will have to adapt to hydrogen-derived fuels such as methanol, as they will be emphasised in upcoming regulations such as FuelEU Maritime. Despite this, switching from fossil fuels to hydrogen-based fuels like renewable methanol is associated with a substantial price tag.
However, a study by Liquid Wind found that synthetic methanol, or e-methanol, can be more economically attractive as an alternative fuel to meet regulatory emission reduction targets than readily available alternative fuels like biofuels and renewable liquefied natural gas (LNG).
In particular, e-methanol has a greater potential to reduce well-to-wake carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than biofuels derived from hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO), biomethane (bio-LNG) or synthetic methane (e-methane or e-LNG).
Lower well-to-wake value = greater CO2 reduction
“Well-to-wake” (WTW) emissions refers to the total amount of CO2 released throughout production, distribution and consumption of the fuel on vessels – from the point of extraction to the point of combustion.
The Liquid Wind study stated that when produced from renewable energy, e-methanol has the lowest WTW value of 1.7 grams of CO2 equivalent per Megajoule of fuel (gCO2eq/MJ), based on a report from the EU Joint Research Center.
In comparison, HVO-based biofuels have a WTW value of 16 gCO2eq/MJ, while bio-LNG has 9.5 gCO2eq/MJ. E-LNG produced from renewable energy has a WTW value of 6.7.
This is because the carbon component of synthetic methanol is made up of 100% biogenic CO2 that is typically captured through either bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), or through the typically more costly technique of direct air capture (DAC). This CO2 is then reacted with green hydrogen using a catalyst. Comparatively, it emits less CO2 during its lifecycle compared with biofuels derived from organic sources.
“A green fuel with a very low GHG footprint per MJ offers a higher CO2 reduction potential than another alternative with a higher footprint,” said the study's lead author and sustainability manager at Liquid Wind, Felix Jung.
PHOTO: Danish shipping company A.P.Moller-Maersk launched its first dual-fuelled methanol feeder vessel. A.P.Moller-Maersk
According to Jung’s calculations, e-methanol’s WTW value results in the highest CO2 reduction potential of 98%. This is compared to 82% potential for HVO-based biofuels, 90% for bio-LNG and 93% for e-LNG.
So if e-methanol has greater WTW CO2 reduction potential than these other alternative fuels, a ship would need relatively less of it to replace fossil fuels and comply with a specific WTW regulation like the upcoming EU's FuelEU Maritime.
The overall amount of fuel required to reach regulatory WTW CO2 reduction targets can be reduced by using e-methanol, concluded Jung, and can even be cut down by almost half compared to biofuels when using measures like the multiplier of 2 under the FuelEU Maritime proposal.
Along similar lines, a study commissioned by German non-profit NABU found e-methanol to be the most promising alternative to decarbonise shipping sector, even more than bio-methanol, ammonia and hydrogen. The study argued that e-methanol has a "significantly lower" impact on marine ecosystems than ammonia does in comparison to conventional fuels.
By Konica Bhatt
Please get in touch with comments or additional info to news@engine.online
