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

Yamaha throws in the towel, pulls out of e-bike market in North America

Published

on

By

Yamaha throws in the towel, pulls out of e-bike market in North America

Yamaha has announced to its dealers that it will be pulling its e-bikes out of the North American market at the end of this year. In the meantime, the brand says that it will offer sales of up to 60% off for its remaining inventory and continue to support its e-bikes already sold in the US for at least five more years.

Yamaha’s electric bikes have been well-received in global markets and have also received rave reviews in the US. However, the company’s higher prices make it harder to compete in the North American market, which is dominated by value-oriented models with significantly lower price points.

Yamaha’s various electric bikes designed for commuting, fitness, and mountain biking all feature higher-end components, which has resulted in the company competing more directly with premium bicycle shops. The company’s elaborate frames and in-house motors have added value to their models, yet have also contributed to a more premium price range.

Meanwhile, Yamaha hasn’t been immune to the same sales slowdown and overstocking issues that have plagued the e-bike industry over the last few years, as the company explained to its dealers in the letter seen below.

“Dear Yamaha eBike Dealer,

We want to thank you for your partnership and for your business in purchasing and retailing Yamaha eBikes, and for proudly representing the Yamaha brand. However, as you know, the combination of a post-COVID oversupply within the entire bicycle industry, coupled with a significant softening of the market, has resulted in a particularly challenging business environment where it is extremely difficult to achieve a sustainable business model. Given these market conditions, we regret to inform you that Yamaha has made the difficult decision to withdraw from the U.S. eBike business and cease wholesaling units effective the end of this year.

Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. (YMUS) entered the U.S. eBike market in 2018, and we have enjoyed the opportunity to partner with you these past six years to sell exciting, high-quality, all-road, mountain, and fitness/lifestyle eBikes.

We will continue to support your dealership in the sell down of your inventory by extending the current “Fan Promotion” program where customers may receive up to 60% off their purchase of a new Yamaha eBike. This “Fan Promotion” program will be offered on all units retailed and warranty registered through June 30, 2025. YMUS will continue to provide parts, service, and customer support in the United States both now and in support of our limited 5-year warranty.

Finally, we wish to express our sincere appreciation and gratitude to you and your staff for your dedication and support of the Yamaha eBike business.

Thank you for your understanding and support.”

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Toyota to buy clean power from a $1.1 billion solar farm in Texas

Published

on

By

Toyota to buy clean power from a .1 billion solar farm in Texas

Enbridge, a Canadian energy company, just announced it’s moving forward with an 815-megawatt (MW) solar project called Sequoia in Texas. When it’s done, it’ll be one of the largest solar farms in North America. The project’s price tag is a hefty $1.1 billion.

Enbridge’s Sequoia, around 150 miles west of Dallas, has already landed long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) with AT&T and Toyota, ensuring most of its output is sold for years to come. This deal was highlighted in Enbridge’s third-quarter report on Friday.

Sequoia will be built in two phases, with power expected to start flowing in 2025 and 2026. Enbridge says it’s taken steps to reduce risks by securing equipment and procurement contracts in advance. Permits and purchase orders are also locked down.

Toyota’s PPA with Enbridge’s Texas solar project is part of Toyota’s broader push toward sustainability, as the automaker aims to achieve net zero by 2035 and match 45% of its purchased power with renewable electricity by 2026 as it still clings to its “diverse powertrain strategy.”


If you live in an area that has frequent natural disaster events, and are interested in making your home more resilient to power outages, consider going solar and adding a battery storage system. 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. They have 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 Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*

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

Continue Reading

Environment

NIO’s EV sales top 20,000 for the sixth straight month as new low-cost SUV shows promise

Published

on

By

NIO's EV sales top 20,000 for the sixth straight month as new low-cost SUV shows promise

With its new electric SUV rolling out, NIO’s (NIO) sales topped the 20,000 mark again in Oct, its sixth straight month hitting the milestone.

NIO sold 20,976 vehicles last month, up 30.5% from October 2023. The NIO brand sold 16,657 vehicles, while its new “family-oriented smart vehicle brand,” Onvo, contributed 4,319 in its first full sales month.

After launching its new mid-size Onvo L60 electric SUV in September, NIO said production and deliveries are steadily ramping up.

At the end of October, NIO’s Onvo had 166 Centers and Spaces throughout 60 cities. Onvo plans to continue expanding its network to drive future growth.

NIO’s new electric SUV starts at around $21,200 (149,900) and is a direct rival to Tesla’s Model Y. The base $21K model is if you rent the battery. Even with the battery included, Onvo L60 prices still start at under $30,000 (206,900 yuan), with a CLTC range of up to 341 miles (555 km). That’s still less than the Model Y.

Tesla’s Model Y RWD starts at around $35,000 (249,900 yuan) with 344 mi (554 km) CLTC range in China.

NIO's-Oct-sales
Onvo L60 electric SUV models (Source: NIO Onvo)

NIO’s new Onvo brand drives higher Oct sales

NIO has often compared its new electric SUV to the Model Y, claiming it’s superior in many ways. The L60 has better consumption at 12.1 kWh/100km compared to the Model Y at 12.5 kWh/100km).

With a longer wheelbase (2,950 mm vs 2,890 mm), NIO’s electric SUV also provides slightly more interior space.

NIO's-Oct-sales
NIO Onvo L60 electric SUV (Source: Onvo)

Despite the L60’s success so far, NIO believes its second Onvo model will be an even bigger hit. It could be a potential game-changer.

“If you think the L60 is good, then this new model is a much more competitive product,” NIO’s CEO William Li told CnEVPost after launching the L60. Onvo will launch a new EV every year. Following the L60, Onvo will launch a new mid-to-large-size electric SUV next year.

NIO’s leader claims the new model will be revolutionary. According to Li, it will offer even more surprises than the L60. Deliveries are planned to begin in Q3 2025.

NIO Onvo L60 vs Tesla Model Y trims Range
(CLTC)
Starting Price
NIO Onvo L60 (Battery rental) 555 km (341 mi)
730 km (454 mi)
149,900 yuan ($21,200)
NIO Onvo L60 (60 kWh) 555 km (341 mi) 206,900 yuan ($29,300)
NIO Onvo L60 (85 kWh) 730 km (454 mi) 235,900 yuan ($33,400)
NIO Onvo L60 (150 kWh) +1,000 km (+621 mi) TBD
Tesla Model Y RWD 554 km (344 mi) 249,900 yuan ($34,600)
Tesla Model Y AWD Long Range 688 km (427 mi) 290,900 yuan ($40,300)
Tesla Model Y AWD Performance 615 km (382 mi) 354,900 yuan ($49,100)
NIO Onvo L60 compared to Tesla Model Y prices and range in China

Local reports suggest a six-or seven-seat electric SUV could hit the market even sooner. With rumors of a launch around Q1 2025, deliveries could happen as soon as May 2025.

According to sources close to the matter, the L60 is just a “stepping stone” with even more exciting EVs on the way. The source claimed the new six-seat option will start at around $42,100 (300,000 yuan).

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

Continue Reading

Trending