Right now, most shipping (i.e., ocean vessels) relies on fossil fuels.  And, shipping is the primary engine behind the world’s economy.  (There are more than 100,000 ships weighing more than 100 tons plying our oceans every year.)   And, fossil fuels will remain the fuel of choice for a while, since the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency that governs international shipping, relies on countries like Saudi Arabia to fund its green ships initiative.

And, whether or not President Biden will force American shipping to choose a less polluting propulsion method (which will immediately be reviewed by the Supreme Court, which is, let’s be charitable, skeptical of carbon emission controls), one must recognize that the bulk of the shipping industry registers vessels in other countries (think Panama and Marshall Islands, where taxes and oversight are minimal, at best.)

And, then, there’ the simple fact that the EPA has no authority over the vessels that dock in American ports- unless they are domestically registered.  In other words, a teeny fraction of those ships servicing US ports.  Plus, we all know that Congress will not be passing any new regulations governing the shipping industry (or, probably any other environmental- or other- regulation at all).

This is not an hypothetical issue.  Consider that our shipping industry contributes about 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year.  (That is about the same as the aviation industry, by the way.)  And, most vessels use the thickest and dirtiest fuel. (It’s actually called bunker fuel, basically the dregs- the least refined segment- of refined petroleum products- replete with sulphur and nitrogen contaminants.   Yet, only some 553 ships out of the more than 100,000 total use other than bunker oil.)  It’s not surprising that these emissions are equivalent to the total amount of emissions from the states of  Texas and California.  And, that number doesn’t include contributions due to port congestion!

There is some hope- from the EU, not the US.  The EU is considering a system that would impose charges on shippers for every ton of carbon dioxide emitted starting next year.  This, of course, would only apply to ships as they traverse European ports.  It may also require these ships to convert to low carbon fuels by 2025.

(If the EU adopts these regulations, you can bet that California will also adopt such requirements for those ships visiting its ports.  [Actually, California has been regulating all shipping vessels within 24 miles of its coasts since 2007.]  After all, it is expected that by 2028, shipping interests will be the primary pollution source for the state.  Which is why there is a zero emissions standard for ferries, and the Air Resources Board is going after tugboats and harbor vessels, too.)

The problem is that shippers have figured out that cutting their travel speeds in half means they’ve cut their fuel demand (and pollution production) by 2/3.  But, that does create havoc to our supply chains, since it now doubles the time it takes a container ship reaches its destination.

And, if a container ship converts to electrical power, the space the batteries need will usurp all the container space on the ship.  In the interim, the vessels can convert to LNG (liquefied natural gas), which would cut pollution by 25%- as long as the system is well contained, since methane (the primary component of LNG) is a more potent carbon pollutant than carbon dioxide.  That’s why Maersk won’t adopt that fuel- instead it’s switching to biofuels (fuel converted from cooking fat)- but there simply isn’t enough of it.  .   But, Maersk still charges more to ship material on those “low carbon” ships.

Other shippers are examining the use of ammonia (nitrogen and hydrogen based) that has a higher energy production per pound of fuel- and yields no carbon dioxide emissions.  But, it is a toxic compound, and still does produce nitrogen oxides (which is the component of smog), so scrubbing systems will be needed for the engines.  And, ammonia production- as it is practiced now- involves a gigantic carbon footprint, so alternatives to fossil fuels for its production must be developed to yield the 500 million tons that will be needed for the ocean vessels.  (The current production level- mostly for agricultural needs- is 150 million tons!)

We need some folks to devote some creative thought to this transportation segment.

Share this: