Maersk Delivers $150 Million PR Win For Shipping Industry With Methanol Ships Purchase
The global industry is responsible for about 3.1% of global CO2 emissions, and that number goes up when you consider black carbon emissions, as the soot and unburned hydrocarbons have a 20-year global warming potential (GWP) of 4,470, and a 100-year GWP of 1,055–2,240. Yes, our Amazon purchases and salads come with a carbon debt.
So what is Maersk doing? It has ordered 8 post-Panamax container ships able to carry 15,000 containers each from South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries, with delivery scheduled for 2024. The ships will be able to burn methanol or bunker fuel in their engines. The methanol is supposed to be carbon-neutral.
However, Maersk runs over 700 ships, so the 8 ships powered by methanol drive trains represent about 1% of its fleet. Not exactly getting rid of bunker fuel rapidly.
Methanol is interesting as a fuel choice. It’s made from natural gas via one of the steam reformation processes, similar to hydrogen in that regard. About a ton of CO2 is produced for every ton of methanol that’s produced, and right now 0% of that is captured. When a ton of methanol is burned, another 0.6 tons of CO2 is emitted. Maersk’s press release talks about carbon-neutral methanol, which suggests using flue carbon capture and follow-on sequestration of the CO2 produced in the steam reformation process.
Bubble diagram of scale of CO2 problem versus capture and use by author
As I’ve published extensively on global carbon capture and sequestration schemes, I’m confident in saying that approaching 0% of CO2 from methanol manufacturing from natural gas and burning as a fuel will be captured, used, and sequestered in the future.
The energy density of methanol is interesting too. The energy density of bunker fuels is about the same as the diesel cited in the linked source. Methanol requires a lot more space and weight on a ship for the same kilometers traveled than traditional fuels.
Running at the cruising speed of 20–25 knots, a Panamax container ship will use about 63,000 gallons of marine fuel every single day. Assuming US gallons (they are smaller, so this is the conservative choice), that’s about 240 tons of fuel a day with diesel or bunker oil. Freighter ships average 40–50 days of travel, although some of that is at lower speeds where fuel consumption drops dramatically. Assuming 40 days, that’s close to 10,000 tons of fuel.
For methanol, basically double that to 20,000 tons of fuel, and comparably less cargo space. Methanol from natural gas with no carbon capture costs over double what bunker fuel does too, over $1 per gallon compared to around $0.50 per gallon.
That means that the same journey will cost 4 times as much in fuel costs, and emit a bunch of CO2 as well.
What methanol does provide is a cleaner-burning fuel. Bunker fuel is nasty stuff, and ships typically get the cheapest, lowest grade, barely refined crap that they can buy. Black carbon — soot and unburned hydrocarbons — is a major pollutant and has an enormous global warming potential as noted above. Vastly less black carbon from methanol than bunker fuel. Ditto sulfur, which is another noxious substance from ships with acid rain implications. Finally, there is high global warming potential nitrous oxide, which is much lower than with bunker fuel.
Right now ships have scrubbers that capture a bunch of the sulfur, particulates, and nitrous oxide, at least when they are operating. Having spoken to an engineer who designs, builds, and installs them on ships, a big focus is on getting the smokestack emissions to look white, like water vapor. The appearance of cleanliness, if not actual cleanliness.
CO2 still gets emitted, however. The CO2 per unit of methanol burned is about 40% of bunker fuel, however, since you need to burn twice as much of it to get the same energy, it’s about 80% of emissions. This isn’t a CO2 saving that’s worth writing home about if the methanol is made from natural gas. It’s more of a value proposition if the CO2 is captured from flue gas or the air or vegetation, but that leads to the very high cost of “green,” synthetic methanol.
It’s possible to manufacture methanol that’s green-ish. You could capture CO2 from somewhere, crack water with electricity to create the hydrogen, and then merge them into methanol. I went deep on this a couple of years ago when looking at Carbon Engineering, a direct air capture fig leaf for various fossil fuel companies.
Table of green methanol manufacturing by author
That turns out to be close to $3 per gallon solely for manufacturing cost in the best case scenario, compared to the just over $1 for natural gas-sourced methanol. Instead of 4x costs for a journey for fuel, it would be 12x costs.
Let’s put this in perspective. Today with the cheapest bunker fuel that you can get, fuel costs represent 50% to 60% of operational costs. Methanol from natural gas without carbon capture makes that about 80%. Methanol from natural gas with carbon capture would make it approach 90%. Green methanol makes it well over 90%.
So will the shipping world sit up and take notice of Maersk buying 8 methanol powered ships? Yes, they will. They know the math and economics much better than I do, as they live it every day. They know that the 8 ships represent a fig leaf for Maersk. They will note that the ships are dual fuel, able to run on methanol or on bunker fuel, and will know that outside of demonstration runs, Maersk will operate them entirely on bunker fuel for the vast majority of their service life.
They will likely be glad that Maersk is doing PR for the global shipping industry. And there won’t be a big lineup for South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries services to build more of them at 10–15% markups on normal ship construction costs.
Long-haul shipping remains a hard problem for decarbonization. Maersk’s purchase isn’t going to address it. The roughly $150 million extra that it paid for the 8 ships is about 0.4% of Maersk’s annual revenues, or about 1.5% of its expected 2021 profits. This is in the range of expenditures by fossil fuel majors on carbon capture, which is to say PR fig leaf territory, and the ships will undoubtedly run on bunker fuel, not methanol, for the vast majority of their freight miles.
Featured image credit: Maersk
Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.
Electricity demand is surging in Texas, and solar, wind, and battery storage are meeting it.
According to new data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), electricity demand across the Texas grid managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) hit record highs in the first nine months of 2025. ERCOT, which supplies power to about 90% of the state, saw demand jump 5% year-over-year to 372 terawatt hours (TWh) – a 23% increase since 2021. No other major US grid has grown faster over the past year.
Solar and wind keep ERCOT’s grid steady
The biggest growth story in Texas power generation is solar. Utility-scale solar plants produced 45 TWh from January through September, up 50% from 2024 and nearly four times what they generated in 2021 (11 TWh). Wind power also continued to climb, producing 87 TWh through September – a 4% increase from last year and 36% more than in 2021.
Together, wind and solar supplied 36% of ERCOT’s total electricity over those nine months. Solar, in particular, has transformed Texas’s daytime energy mix. From June to September, ERCOT solar farms generated an average of 24 gigawatts (GW) between noon and 1 pm – double the midday output from 2023. That growth has pushed down natural gas use at midday from 50% of the mix in 2023 to 37% this year.
Battery storage is filling in the gaps
Batteries charge during the day when wind and solar generation are the highest, and they produce electricity when generation from wind and solar slows down. ERCOT began reporting battery output separately in October 2024 in its hourly grid data, and it’s clear that batteries are now helping to smooth out evening peaks. This past summer, batteries supplied an average of 4 GW of power around 8 pm, right as solar production dropped off.
Natural gas is flatlining
Natural gas is still Texas’s dominant power source, but it isn’t growing like it used to. Between January and September, gas-fired plants generated 158 TWh of electricity, compared to 161 TWh in 2023. Gas comprised 43% of ERCOT’s generation mix during the first nine months of 2025, down from 47% in the first nine months of 2023 and 2024.
More demand growth ahead
The EIA expects Texas electricity demand to keep rising faster than any other grid in the US. In its latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, the EIA projects ERCOT’s demand will climb another 14% in the first nine months of 2026, reaching 425 TWh. That means Texas will need even more solar, wind, and battery storage to keep up with its breakneck growth.
Read more: This $900 million solar farm in Texas is going 100% to data centers
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
GM is recalling nearly 23,000 Chevy Equinox EV and Cadillac Optiq models due to a defect where the tire tread could fall off.
GM is recalling more Chevy Equinox EV models
In a letter sent to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), GM said it has decided to issue a safety recall for certain Chevy Equinox EV and Cadillac Optiq models from model years 2025 to 2026.
This time, it isn’t necessarily GM’s fault. The vehicles may be equipped with 21″ all-season tires that Continental Tire is recalling.
According to Continental, the tires were produced during the week of October 6, 2024, and may have a defect where the tire tread could partially or fully detach. The records show the defect is due to a nonconforming tread base rubber compound.
Owners of affected vehicles may notice unusual tread wear or bulging, vibration while driving, or tire noises. GM is unaware of any incidents related to the defect, but is issuing the recall out of an abundance of caution.
On September 18, 2025, GM inspected the assembly plant and confirmed there were no suspect tires in stock. The 21″ tires come standard on RS trims and are optional on LT1 and LT2 grades.
Although GM is recalling 22,914 Chevy Equinox EVs and Cadillac Optiqs, it estimates that only about 1% of them have the defect.
The recall includes:
- 2026 Cadillac Optiq: 214
- 2026 Chevy Equinox EV: 1,832
- 2025 Cadillac Optiq: 3,468
- 2025 Chevy Equinox EV: 17,400
GM dealers will check all four tires and replace them if needed, free of charge. Dealers were notified on October 16. Owner notification letters are expected to be mailed out on December 1, 2025.
You can contact Chevrolet’s customer service number at 1-800-222-1020 or Cadillac’s at 1-800-333-4223. GM’s recall number is N252525030. Owners can also call the NHTSA hotline at 1-888-327-4236 or visit the nhtsa.gov website for more information.
The Chevy Equinox EV is now the third best-selling EV in the US, trailing only the Tesla Model Y and Model 3. Meanwhile, Cadillac’s entry-level Optiq SUV is the fifth-most-popular luxury EV. The recall is minor and only affects a small percentage of models, so it’s not expected to have a major impact.
If you want to test one of them for yourself, we can help you get started. Check out our links below to find available Chevy Equinox EV and Cadillac Optiq models near you.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
In the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. In this week’s episode, we discuss Tesla’s earnings madness, Rivian layoffs, Ford pausing F-150 Lightning, and more.
The show is live every Friday at 4 p.m. ET on Electrek’s YouTube channel.
As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.
After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:
We now have a Patreon if you want to help us avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.
Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:
Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4:00 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET:
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024