Connect with us

Published

on

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

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

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.

 

 


Advertisement



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

Trump’s broadside against wind industry puts projects that could power millions of homes at risk

Published

on

By

Trump's broadside against wind industry puts projects that could power millions of homes at risk

A view of the turbines at Orsted’s offshore wind farm near Nysted, Denmark, September 4, 2023. 

Tom Little | Reuters

President Donald Trump promised to unleash U.S. energy dominance, but his sweeping executive order targeting wind power puts a pipeline of projects at risk that would generate enough electricity for millions of American homes.

The order Trump issued on his first day in office indefinitely paused new offshore wind leases in U.S. coastal waters and halted new permits pending the completion of a review. The order jeopardizes proposed projects on the East Coast that have not yet secured permits totaling 32 gigawatts of power, according to data from the consulting firm Aurora Energy Research.

“At the moment, it’s really hard to see how any of these projects will be able to move forward,” said Artem Abramov, head of new energies research at the consultancy Rystad. Like Aurora, Rystad estimates that around 30 gigawatts of projects on the U.S. East Coast are at risk.

Those projects, if realized, would provide enough combined power for more than 12 million homes in the U.S., according a CNBC analysis of data from the Energy Information Administration. The order is not expected to impact projects under construction totaling about 5 gigawatts, according to Aurora.

Trump has abandoned commitments made during the Biden administration to fight climate change, withdrawing the U.S. for a second time from the Paris agreement. He has focused on boosting fossil fuel production, opening U.S. coastal waters to oil and gas leasing on the same day he withdrew those waters for wind.

Trump’s order will jeopardize the efforts of states in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast to transition away from fossil fuels and decarbonize their electric grid, Abramov said. New York, New Jersey and Virginia, for example, have ambitious clean energy goals adopted at the state level. But they are too far north to rely on solar with battery for power, Abramov said.

“If you want to achieve the future where the power generation in New York or New Jersey or Virginia is completely fossil free, if that’s the ultimate goal, there are not so many alternatives to offshore wind,” Abramov said.

The order could ultimately force states to rely more on carbon-emitting natural gas, according to Rystad and Aurora. But it is virtually impossible for a state like New York to meet its climate goals and ensure an adequate energy supply, particularly downstate in the New York City metro area, without offshore wind, said Julia Hoos, who heads Aurora’s U.S. East division.

Power projects waiting in line to connect to the electric grid in downstate New York through 2027 are almost entirely wind and transmission, Hoos said.

“There is virtually no possibility to bring online new gas in the next 18 to 24 months, unless there’s a significant reform or there’s some sort of fast track to bring online that gas, so you really can run into reliability issues,” Hoos said.

But more natural gas generation will likely be built later in the decade on the back of Trump’s policies, Hoos said. Investor sentiment was already shifting toward gas before the election results due in part to the need for reliable power to meet demand from artificial intelligence data centers, Abramov said.

Immediate impact

Two weeks after Trump’s order, New Jersey decided against moving forward for now with the Atlantic Shores project, which stood to become the first offshore wind development in the state. The state utilities board cited “uncertainty driven by federal actions and permitting” and European oil major Shell pulling out of the project.

“The offshore wind industry is currently facing significant challenges, and now is the time for patience and prudence,” Gov. Phil Murphy said in a statement backing the board’s decision.

Murphy, who has set a goal to achieve 100% clean energy in New Jersey by 2035, said he hoped “the Trump Administration will partner with New Jersey to lower costs for consumers, promote energy security, and create good-paying construction and manufacturing jobs.”

Offshore wind in the U.S. “has come to a stop, more or less with immediate effect” in the wake of Trump’s order, Vestas Wind Energy Systems CEO Henrik Andersen told investors on the company’s Feb. 5 earnings call. Denmark’s Vestas is one of the world’s leaders in manufacturing and servicing wind turbines.

Industry headwinds

Vestas CEO says wind turbine manufacturer is ‘well positioned’ amid tariff concerns

But the industry has struggled against supply chain bottlenecks and high interest rates. Offshore wind was already the the most expensive form of renewable energy, Abramov said. Developers in the U.S. have faced a lot of cost certainty due to the challenges of building on water as opposed to land, Hoos said.

“The industry was hoping that the cost would come down,” Abramov said. “We haven’t seen any projects in the United States which was able to achieve lower levelized cost of energy.”

The world’s largest offshore wind developer, Denmark’s Orsted, decided on Feb. 5 to ditch its goal to install up to 38 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2030. Orsted also slashed its investment program through the end of the decade by about 25% to range of 210 to 230 billion Danish crowns (about $29 billion to $32 billion), down from 270 billion crowns previously.

Orsted’s Sunrise Wind and Revolution wind projects that are under construction offshore New York and New England respectively should not be impacted by Trump’s order, CEO Rasmus Errboe told investors the company’s company’s Feb. 6 earnings call. Future developments, however, may be at risk.

“We are fully committed to moving them forward and deliver on our commitments,” Errboe said. “We do not expect that the executive order will have any implications on assets under construction, but of course for assets under development, it’s potentially a different situation.”

The order also should not impact Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, the largest such project under construction in the U.S. at 2.6 gigawatts of power, Dominion Energy CEO Robert Blue told investors on the utility’s Feb. 12 earning call.

Stopping it would be the most inflationary action that could be taken with respect to energy in Virginia,” Blue said. “It’s needed to power that growing data center market we’ve been talking about, critical to continuing U.S. superiority in AI and technology.”

Looking for clarity

The wind industry lobby group American Clean Power in a Jan. 20 statement described Trump’s order as a blanket measure that will jeopardize domestic energy development and harm American businesses and workers. The president’s order contradicts the administration’s goal to reduce bureaucracy and unleash energy production, ACP CEO Jason Grumet said in the statement.

The ACP is now trying to get clarity from the Trump administration on how the executive order will be implemented, said Frank Macchiarola, the group’s chief advocacy officer. It’s unclear, for example, when the review of permit and lease practices will be complete, Macchiarola said.

A spokesperson for the Interior Department simply said the department is implementing Trump’s executive order when asked for comment on a detailed list of questions. When asked when the review of permit and lease practices will be complete, the spokesperson said any estimate would be hypothetical.

The wind industry is committed to working with the Trump administration, supports the president’s push for energy dominance agenda and is making the case that renewables have a key role to play in that agenda as the largest new source of electricity in the U.S., Macchiarola said.

“When past administrations have chosen to stifle American energy development that has been almost universally viewed as a mistake,” Macchiarola said.

Onshore wind permitting has also been halted pending the review, but the part of the industry is unlikely to face a substantial impact, Rystad’s Abramov said. Wind farms onshore are almost entirely built on private rather than federal land, he said. The market is also already saturated and adding capacity is largely dependent on building out more energy storage first, the analyst said.

Offshore wind, however, is a much less mature market in the U.S. and was viewed as major growth opportunity for the industry, Abramov said. But that appears to changing rapidly.

“They don’t see the U.S. as a market for continuous offshore wind expansion as long as this order is in place,” the analyst said.

— CNBC’s Gabriel Cortes contributed to this report.

Don’t miss these energy insights from CNBC PRO:

Continue Reading

Environment

How OEM telematics integration can maximizing EV fleet efficiency and ROI

Published

on

By

How OEM telematics integration can maximizing EV fleet efficiency and ROI

Last month, Geotab signed a deal with Volvo Group to integrate the manufacturer’s vehicle data API into Geotab’s telematics platform. It’s the latest in a recent onslaught of such deals between telematics providers and OEMs that begs the question: what’s in it for the OEMs?

Almost all modern cars and trucks are “connected” in some way. Ford, for example, began fitting the FordPass Connect modem on all its vehicles in the 2020 model year, and the vehicle (and driver) data gathered powers the Ford Pro fleet management platform and enables offerings like the company’s E-Switch Assist, which enables Ford fleet managers to identify which of its ICE-powered F-150 and Transit assets are ready to make the switch to EV.

“Smart tools informed by data like E-Switch Assist are opening up many new conversations with our commercial customers large and small about EV readiness; we’re already using E-Switch Assist regularly in consultations to help organizations determine if electric trucks and vans are right for them,” says Nate McDonald, EV strategy and cross vehicle brand manager at Ford Pro. “The importance of these tools and technologies goes beyond selling a customer a new vehicle—it changes mindsets about whether electric vehicles will work for their business while potentially saving them time and money.”

So, it makes sense for manufacturers to build that connectivity into their vehicles and makes even more sense to use that data connection to populate a fleet management dashboard that makes it painless for fleet managers to monitor their assets within a trusted ecosystem. Think Android vs. iPhone, and the pain that would go into switching from one to the other after a decade or so of constant interaction – because that’s how the OEMs are looking at it.

Why, then, would an OEM open up that data stream to a third party like Geotab?

The answer, presumably, is that that data sharing is a two-way street: the manufacturer’s are opening up their APIs to Geotab, and Geotab is sharing at least some of the data from other manufacturers with their industry partners.

And Geotab has a lot of partners:

All of those players are convinced that the data coming from their vehicles can produce enough value to seriously impact fleet ROI.

Fleet managers seem convinced, too. In a recent McKinsey survey, nearly 57% of EV buyers said they were willing to switch brands in order to get better connectivity features. And, if you’ve ever worked in “a Ford shop” or “a Chevy shop” you already know what a huge that deal that number might be to an OEM.

McKinsey connectivity survey

BEV buyers’ willingness to switch brands; via McKinsey.

In that point of view, working with a trusted, universal platform like Geotab who doesn’t have a dog in the vehicle sales fight makes sense. If the Ford Transit the fleet buyer is looking at plays well with their fleet auditing software and systems and the Nissan NV doesn’t – well, it doesn’t really matter if Nissan’s fleetail guy is giving you a better deal at that point. It’s just too painful to operate a second dashboard for one subset of assets.

The man-hours saved with a universal and brand agnostic fleet management platform may not be the easiest to trace all the way to the bottom line, but they’re there.

Additionally, the Geotab dashboard can be configured to collect and even analyze data that’s specifically relevant to EVs. Information like charging history, and regenerative braking efficiency, and overall battery health – data that, over thousands of vehicles, can give fleet managers real insight into how long the new electric vehicles they’re considering will last compared to the gas and diesel vehicles they have experience with.

Geotab research shows that EV batteries could last 20 years or more if they degrade at an average rate of 1.8% per year, as we have observed.

According to our data, the simple answer is that the vast majority of batteries will outlast the usable life of the vehicle and will never need to be replaced. If an average EV battery degrades at 1.8% per year, it will still have over 80% state of health after 12 years, generally beyond the usual life of a fleet vehicle.

GEOTAB

Telematics integrations can also help optimize a fleet’s charging schedules, both by scheduling EV charging for lower priced, off-peak hours and by identifying the most dependable high-speed charging stations along regular routes to minimize down time for both vehicles and drivers.

Finally, these data-driven platforms can provide fleet managers tools for tracking and reporting things like carbon emissions and overall energy consumption, which can streamline ESG reporting processes and make it easier for the worker bees to get regulators, administrators, and managers the sort of charts, tables, and graphs they love.

Something like that, anyway.

You can check out my Quick Charge with Nate McDonald, EV strategy and cross vehicle brand manager at Ford Pro, who explores how Ford’s in-house telematics can help fleet managers decarbonize, and head over to Geotab to find out more about their brand agnostic fleet management dashboard, below. Enjoy!

EV or gas – which is right for you?

SOURCES: Fleet Europe, Ford Pro, Geotab, McKinsey; add’l links in article.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Another hydrogen fail as Renault subsidiary Hyvia struggles to survive

Published

on

By

Another hydrogen fail as Renault subsidiary Hyvia struggles to survive

French hydrogen firm Hyvia has been given a stay of execution. The Commercial Court of Versaille has given Hyvia a few extra weeks to get through its insolvency proceedings and find a buyer – but, frankly, it ain’t lookin’ good.

Hyvia began life as a joint venture between French carmaker Renault and American company Plug Power in 2021, but as anyone with more than a social media headline-deep knowledge of hydrogen’s shortcomings as a transportation already know: it’s impossible for hydrogen to compete with BEVs.

The facts surrounding hydrogen fuel cells remain the kind of lessons that people insist on learning the expensive way, however – and companies like Hyzon, Nikola, and even GM seem intent on spending more millions to learn them, even as genuine engineering experts like Mahle insist that the costs (and carbon emissions) of hydrogen remain impractically high for all but the most specialized use cases.

To its credit, Renault seems to have learned those rather expensive lessons about hydrogen well – and has learned so much about hydrogen that it’s committed to a full range of battery electric delivery vans. The French carmaker’s new vans range in size from something like an MPV/minivan on up to a box van and something like one of the Amazon delivery vans built by Rivian called the Estafette E-Tech (below, center).

Renault commercial electric vans

Electric commercial vans, via Renault.

But this article isn’t about Renault’s EVs, it’s about the hydrogen-powered Hyvia brand – and Hyvia doesn’t seem to be long for this world. That hard truth becomes even more obvious when you read the company’s own statement on the matter, which is almost wholly devoid of self-awareness and full of external blame:

For three years, HYVIA, one of the first companies to invest and innovate in hydrogen mobility, has developed an offer, in a market which unfortunately still remains absent.

The too slow evolution of hydrogen mobility ecosystems in Europe and the very significant development costs required for H2 innovation led to this decision.

HYVIA

When I first wrote about Hyzon retreating from Australia’s shores, I noted something interesting: Australia’s commercial BEV sales were booming. The same is true in the US, as well, with Cox Automotive expecting fully 1 in 4 new cars sold this year to be fully electric.

It seems like the market has spoken, then – and hydrogen has lost.

SOURCE | IMAGES: Hyvia, H2.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending