THE FULL STORY: Panel Debate - Meet the global leaders making the first green waves
During the live conference we were unable to get the input from two of our world leading panellists due to technical issues: Prasanna Colluru from Future Proof Shipping, and Trevor Jasper from CMB.TECH. We are delighted to now publish the full story – interviews with Prasanna and Trevor, together with the recording from the conference. Together this gives THE FULL STORY.
Panellists
Prasanna Colluru, Future Proof Shipping
Trevor Jasper, CMB Tech
Steinar Madsen, Wilhelmsen
Karl Arthur Bræin, Amon Maritime
Håvard Framnes, Østensjø Rederi
Topic 1: How vessel type and use effects the choice of hydrogen
Prasanna
The Maas will operate on compressed hydrogen on a fixed route. Could you tell us about how Future Proof Shipping is ensuring there is always hydrogen available when needed?
Yes, based on the operational profile, readiness, and price, we chose PEM fuel cells and compressed hydrogen. The hydrogen and fuel cell system will be installed in the cargo space, with the hydrogen being placed in two 40ft containers (approx. 1000 kg at 300 bar) above the fuel cell system.
To secure our energy supply, we have a contract with our preferred green hydrogen supplier, news on that is coming shortly.
The Maas will have swappable containers of hydrogen on board, and we will most likely do the exchanging of containers at Antwerp. Furthermore, we will ensure the bunkering/swapping schedule is arranged in such a way that we will always have hydrogen available on board.
We also have a battery pack for back-up / take-me-home scenarios in the unlikely event that we run out of hydrogen.
What additional challenges ship owners face for vessels without fixed sailing routes?
Shipowners could easily start with decarbonising at least a part of their operations – starting with auxiliary power systems, or a percentage of propulsion power. Most vessels (especially inland and short sea) have the possibility to go to at least one or two key ports at regular intervals. Hydrogen containers could be picked up at these ports, and/or hydrogen bunkering could be coordinated with a regular refuelling cycle.
Right now, ports do not have refuelling stations on site, so hydrogen is going to be brought by truck/trailer to the vessel anyway – this offers some flexibility as well – you can bring the hydrogen from a production site to a convenient location (within a certain range, of course).
Trevor Jasper
Can you say a little about the over decade long process that has led to choosing dual fuel diesel hydrogen for the Hydrobingo.
The CMB.TECH engineering team have been assessing and deploying low-carbon solutions in many areas. We started using hydrogen-diesel co-combustion in automotive projects to demonstrate a feasible lower-carbon technology available in a cost-effective solution. In 2019, following the team acquisition by CMB.nV, that evolved into addressing the hard problems of decarbonising the shipping industry where the scale of engineering and investment is so much bigger. For us as a shipping company, reliability and usability of the vessel are of paramount importance. The dual fuel approach provides the best value carbon reduction technology both from a CAPEX investment and from a risk point of view. Our conclusion is that hydrogen-diesel dual-fuel co-combustion in an engine brings the chicken and the egg together – an emerging hydrogen-consuming technology which can drive the development and investment into the supply side infrastructure, without being entirely reliant on it.
Can you elaborate upon the flexibility this gives you with respect to other technologies.
The infrastructure around the supply of hundreds of kilogrammes of hydrogen per day just isn't robust enough to support hydrogen mono-fuel marine vessels. Meaning, no hydrogen = no operation. Dual fuel has the flexibility of diesel-only fall-back for continued operation, unlike a mono fuel solution (e.g. a fuel cell). Similarly, we are robust to any hydrogen system fault as we simply revert to diesel-only operation which maintains crew safety as well as operational uptime. Further, the quantities of hydrogen needed as a mono fuel, for the same autonomy as diesel-only operation, is complex and difficult to accommodate in current vessel design. It is typically easier to gain class approval for the smaller quantities of hydrogen required as a dual-fuel vessel.
Topic 2: The cost difference between fossil and zero-emission fuels
Trevor Jasper
Looking at fuel cell vs Internal combustion engine, can you say anything about the difference in CAPEX between the two?
The internal combustion engine as a dual fuel solution is currently much cheaper to use from a fuels cost perspective, as the current green hydrogen price is significantly more expensive that diesel – circa three times the cost per mega joule of energy. As green hydrogen becomes more widespread, the cost would be expected to drop, (though initially, increased demand may keep the price higher for a while), leading to closer cost-equivalency. From first principles, the fuel cell should be more efficient at using the energy from hydrogen, so it should use less hydrogen for the same power output than an ICE engine. However, this is only relevant when comparing to a mono fuel engine, unless there is a significant carbon tax levied on diesel in the future raising the cost to at or above hydrogen, per mega joule.
In terms of the CAPEX cost of the technology, the internal combustion is a very cost-optimised solution with over 100 years of aggressive technological development. The fuel cell has not seen that level of development, so the CAPEX cost difference is more than an order of magnitude, even when taking into account the necessary hydrogen storage for both solutions.Topic 3: Opportunities for re-building vessels to low or zero-emission
Topic 3: Opportunities for re-building vessels to low or zero-emission
Prasanna
What advice would you have for other ship owners considering a rebuilding vs new-build to decarbonise their fleet Can you touch upon other sustainability factors that are beneficial when it comes to rebuilding?
If the vessel is not at the end of its lifetime, retrofitting should definitely be considered. In the European inland fleet, we have more than 15k vessels, and about 80 newbuilds each year. At this rate it will take 200 years to renew the entire fleet! Also, inland vessels have a lifetime of over 40 years, and there is no reason to scrap a perfectly good vessel. This is why retrofitting existing vessels is crucial in fast forwarding the transition to a zero-emissions shipping future.
Prices of steel are sky high right now and we are going to face more and more resource crunches as we go forward.
If shipowners look holistically at their operations and vessels and configure the new zero emissions / hydrogen-based propulsion system appropriately, they will find that in several cases retrofits offer the best value and fastest impact for the capital invested
Trevor Jasper
What opportunities are there for re-building vessels using dual fuel engines.
Rebuilding vessels to dual fuel is entirely possible. The problem is that the certification of that rebuild currently requires recertification of the engine, and there are no certification requirements for dual fuel, so the only possible route is to demonstrate back-to-back equality for emissions. That is unnecessarily costly and time-consuming, and ultimately kills off the opportunity to rebuild – it’s cheaper to start from scratch, leading to no improvement in the existing fleet and costs for everyone by forcing upgrade/replacement costs to all.
We don't believe that the search for zero emissions should preclude improving on the current diesel-only option of doing nothing - thereby avoiding the "best is the enemy of better" problem. This is something we can do now with existing technology, and dual-fuel solutions offer to possibility to get to over 70% CO2 savings with further optimisations and developments of the IC engine (all relatively low CAPEX cost and risk), so they are already somewhat future-proofed. Mono-fuelled H2ICE is only an evolution on that concept, so this appears to us to be the lowest risk option, while providing a lower CO2 option now.
Conclusion
If you had 3 key points that you wish to get across (that you haven’t touched upon already), one to policy makers, one to financial institutions, and one to other businesses in the maritime industry, what would they be?
Prasanna
Point to policy makers: Technology to build zero-emissions for most vessel segments exists today. It’s really about deploying them and making them operational at scale. Regulations should be more ambitious than ‘commercially ready zero-emissions vessels in 2050’, that’s too late. The focus should be on the goal of zero-emissions and not on specific technologies as we will not have a silver bullet solution – developments are going fast, and different segments and operations will find the most appropriate solutions through market dynamics. Rules and guidelines should be developed for all possible zero-emissions technology and fuel pathways to de-risk projects and make them bankable.
Point to financial actors: You need to start funding decarbonisation in shipping both at the technology and project level to be able to reap the rewards in 10 years from now. Don’t miss the boat!
Point to other maritime businesses: As we seek to transition into a zero-emissions industry, it is important to consider our business, vessels and operations holistically and not seek to find ways to continue doing things exactly the way we’ve done them in the past. We might have to bunker more often, rethink operational schedules or require crews with completely different skill sets – these are things we have to adapt to, not use as reasons to deter us from change.
Trevor
Point to policy makers: To the policy makers, this is very much NOT business as usual. It is up to you to figure out how to frame the policy to accept new technology as easily as possible without unnecessary/over-regulation and yet with equal safety. Rules for dual fuel hydrogen diesel co-combustion have been sorely lacking for over a decade. Retro-fitting dual fuel to existing engines is not feasible ONLY because of current regulations. Dual fuel is not going away any time soon, so adapt the regulations for the benefit of the world.
Point to financial actors: Grasp the opportunities to invest in the hydrogen infrastructure as this is the weakest link in the whole green hydrogen story. Technologically, hydrogen as a fuel is achievable now, but is being held back by lack of infrastructure.
Point to other maritime business: Hydrogen is the future; dual fuel is the transition technology available today. Make the change to learn what it means to operate with hydrogen for a zero-emission future.
Mark Purkis
Project Consultant
+47 482 41 346
mark(a)hubforocean.no