Life Cycle Assessment of Low-Carbon Maritime Methanol and Ammonia скачать в хорошем качестве

Life Cycle Assessment of Low-Carbon Maritime Methanol and Ammonia

Lifecycle Reality Check on Methanol & Ammonia Fuels (What the numbers actually say) The study “Life Cycle Assessment of E-/Bio-Methanol and E-/Grey-/Blue-Ammonia for Maritime Transport”, published in 2025 by IFP Energies Nouvelles and commissioned by CMA CGM, provides a data-heavy assessment of how alternative marine fuels perform when measured against the shipping industry’s net-zero by 2050 target. Its core objective is simple but critical: ➡️ Move beyond fuel labels and assess real climate impact at the vessel and cargo level. Methodology: Why This Study Is Different Instead of stopping at fuel production emissions, the report applies a Well-to-Wake (WtW) framework: Well-to-Tank (WtT): fuel production, electricity source, transport Tank-to-Wake (TtW): onboard combustion emissions More importantly, emissions are not assessed only per unit of energy (gCO₂eq/MJ), but per transport work delivered: gCO₂eq / TEU-km This shift captures real operational penalties: Engine efficiency losses Pilot fuel requirements (for ammonia) Cargo capacity loss due to larger fuel systems This makes the results far closer to commercial reality than most policy-level assessments. Fuel Pathway Results (vs VLSFO Baseline) Bio-Methanol Feedstock: wood waste / farmed biomass ≈80% reduction in WtW emissions Best overall performer in the study Main constraint: biomass availability E-Methanol Renewable hydrogen + captured CO₂ ≈70% reduction Strong option, but scalability depends on sustainable CO₂ sourcing Green (E-) Ammonia Renewable hydrogen + nitrogen via Haber-Bosch ≈50% reduction on average Penalised by: Lower engine efficiency N₂O emissions, which have ~265× CO₂ GWP “Carbon-free molecule” ≠ carbon-free outcome Blue Ammonia Natural gas + CCS Performs slightly worse than VLSFO on average Methane leakage and upstream energy intensity erase CCS benefits Not viable for deep decarbonisation What Actually Drives the Results Electricity Grid Carbon Intensity E-fuels only work if power is clean. Low-carbon grids (e.g. France, Canada, Brazil) materially outperform fossil-heavy grids. Distance to Bunkering Hubs Fuel transport emissions are non-trivial. Production near hubs like Rotterdam or Singapore materially improves WtW results. Accounting Boundaries Matter Regulatory methods (e.g. EU RED) often exclude: Renewable infrastructure emissions Equipment manufacturing Cradle-to-Grave (CTG) accounting gives a more conservative—and more honest—picture. Forward Outlook: 2035–2050 The study projects continued emission reduction across all e-fuel pathways, driven by: Global grid decarbonisation Electrolyser efficiency gains (alkaline → SOEC) Vessels consuming their own alternative fuels during fuel transport However, relative rankings between fuels remain broadly consistent—technology improvements do not eliminate structural penalties. Simple Analogy (For Non-Technical Audiences) Choosing a marine fuel today is like choosing a delivery vehicle for a city. One vehicle may have zero tailpipe emissions, but: carries fewer packages, and charges from coal-based electricity It may end up delivering more emissions per parcel than a slightly imperfect but well-designed hybrid. Shipping fuel decisions work the same way. If you are: evaluating FuelEU Maritime compliance, building a fleet decarbonisation roadmap, or comparing methanol vs ammonia investments, 👉 Do not rely on tank-to-wake or fuel-label claims alone. 👉 Ask for TEU-km or tonne-mile-based lifecycle data. If you found this breakdown useful: Subscribe for deeper, data-led shipping decarbonisation content Comment with your view: which fuel do you see scaling first—and why? Share this with a colleague still comparing fuels on gCO₂/MJ numbers