TCFN - Energy Transition at Maritime and Ports

The shipping sector is, once more, exploring  new vessel  energy sources spanning a wide range of options, from alternative fossil fuels to renewables, all with a view to powering vessels more sustainably. The authors discuss the different prospects of the supply chains for  16 such alternatives based on publicly available data. Differences in prospects are highlighted on the basis of descriptive statistics for  fuel supply chain Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)  including the mean, for estimating prospects, and the coefficient of variation to explore hidden vulnerabilities. While finding marked differences  in the calculated values, the authors do not preclude the development of parallel  ship fuel supply chains, unlike the case of  previous fuel transitions in shipping. To support this prospect, they  emphasize positive attributes of today's world fleet in terms of total fleet size and this of main shipping sectors which could thus sustain nowadays more than one fuel supply chain. Highlighting a number of limitations and challenges that any such multitude of fuel supply chains can create for shipping,  the authors underline also the need to include in any Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of shipping fuels their impact on necessary ship hardware changes to adapt to these.

To meet the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) decarbonization goals, green shipping corridors (GSCs) emerge as a key strategy to replace fossil-based fuels with renewable alternatives. However, fleet-level assessment of renewable fuels within GSCs remains limited. This paper addresses this research gap by evaluating the operational, environmental, and economic impacts of eight solutions, including the adoption of four renewable fuels-compressed/liquefied hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol-powered by dual-fuel engines and fuel cells. Using a tailored database integrating fuel dataset and vessel dataset derived from Automatic Identification System (AIS), lifecycle impacts are assessed following IMO's guidelines. A case study of Rotterdam-to-Singapore GSC demonstrates that greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by 74.71% to 93.15% by cargo capacity loss up to 16.84%, and an increase in total ownership costs by a multiple between 3.7 and 6.1 times. This research offers a versatile framework for evaluating renewable fuels in global shipping, providing decarbonization insights.

Port decarbonisation research investigates how ports adopt emissions reduction measures to align with the global climate net-zero goal. Although there is extensive literature on port decarbonisation, limited academic research has been undertaken on Australian ports. To address the gap, this paper examines the decarbonisation status of Australian ports, focusing on their strategies, progress, and challenges in reducing emissions across scopes 1, 2, and 3. This paper employs a content analysis methodology to examine sustainability reports, annual reports, and decarbonisation-related documents from Australian port authorities, marine service providers, logistics companies, and terminal operators. The findings highlight significant advances, including electrification, renewable energy integration, alternative fuels, and operational efficiencies, with many of the Australian ports aiming for net-zero emissions by 2050, with interim targets set for 2030 and 2040. However, challenges persist, particularly in relation to infrastructure readiness, economic feasibility, and regulatory support. Collaborative efforts among government agencies, industry stakeholders, and international partners are essential to overcome these barriers. Pilot projects, such as hydrogen-powered locomotives and biofuel adoption, demonstrate innovation but require scaling for substantial impact. By addressing these aspects, this paper contributes to advancing port decarbonisation in Australia.

This study examines the emissions generated during vessel transit and waiting periods at the Panama Canal, as well as the potential of currently available alternative fuels to mitigate their environmental impact. Technical, operational, and environmental data are collected from two bulk carriers during Canal transits to construct operational profiles and evaluate fuel consumption for both propulsion and auxiliary systems. Emissions from conventional systems using marine diesel oil (MDO) are calculated as a baseline, and alternative scenarios using methanol and liquefied natural gas in dual-fuel engines are assessed. The analysis encompasses direct emissions from fuel use and indirect emissions from fuel production and transportation, providing a comprehensive life cycle perspective. The study also evaluates the energy production costs to compare the economic performance of each fuel option. Results show that liquefied natural gas (LNG) reduces life cycle carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by up to 19.03%, while methanol produced from fossil sources increases them by up to 17.42%. Methanol nearly eliminates sulphur oxides and particulate matter, whereas LNG achieves greater reductions in nitrogen oxides. The energy production cost ranges from $0.1548 to $0.2001 per kilowatt-hour for methanol, $0.1157 to 0.1545 for LNG and 0.1167 to 0.1546 for MDO, highlighting the trade-offs between environmental performance and economic viability.