Fueling the future like it or not: What are the pros and cons of UN-approved decarbonized marine eco-fuels?
 As the global bureaucracy orders industry ashore and afloat to transition to more clean energy, alternatives to traditional fossil fuels compete for favour.
The pressure is on the international shipping community to join what many consider to be a global warming carbon craze. All are agreed that it will increase costs while decreasing engine room efficiency and we shall pay more for less.
It is widely accepted in the eco-geek community, now fully backed by the media academic bureaucratic complex worldwide, that greater regulation is better for all in principle. While the world will be poorer for it, this is entirely to the good as humanity is parasitic and should be reduced in the interests of planetary sustainability.
With this in mind, we asked artificial intelligence in the form of Chat-JPT to assess the pros and cons of the top UN approved marine eco-fuels.
These alternatives, such as biodiesel, electricity, ethanol, methanol, ammonia, hydrogen, LNG, propane and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) all have their champions and advocates, each offering ways to reduce if not eliminate carbon emissions.
However, each alternative has its advantages and drawbacks. They vary in terms of availability, cost and environmental impact.
First, biodiesel's advantages are that it comes from renewable sources such as vegetable oils and animal fats.
Available as a drop-in option it is compatible with existing diesel engines. It is also carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative when sourced from sustainable feedstocks.
Biodiesel's limited availability due to the need to grow crops for feedstock production is its first drawback. It also competes with food production, potentially driving up food prices is another flaw. It can also lead to deforestation and monoculture if not sustainably produced.
The advantage of electric power is that it is widely available and can be generated from renewable sources such as solar and wind.
Electric engines are highly efficient, providing significant energy savings. Electric vehicles have lower maintenance costs and no tailpipe emissions.
The big disadvantage of electric engines is the limited charging infrastructure available, especially in rural and developing areas. Battery production and disposal can have environmental consequences. One also needs longer charging times compared to refueling with petrol or diesel.
The advantage of ethanol is that it is produced from renewable biomass, mainly corn or sugarcane. It blends with petrol, reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
It also helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improves air quality.
But the impact on food prices and may lead to deforestation if crops are not managed. Ethanol has lower energy content than petrol, resulting in lower fuel efficiency. It also requires a specialised infrastructure for distribution and storage.
Methanol boasts better environmental credentials. It emits lower carbon dioxide (CO2) and negligible sulphur and particulate matter. Methanol can also be produced from various sources, including natural gas, coal, biomass and even waste materials.
But methanol also has lower energy content per unit volume and more is required to deliver equivalent power. Methanol necessitates heavy investment in bunkering facilities, storage tanks and supply chain logistics. Fluctuations in feedstock prices can also impact its overall cost-effectiveness over time.
The pluses for ammonia use are that it can be produced using renewable electricity, promoting decarbonisation.
High energy density, make it a potential alternative to many other candidates.
But ammonia production relies heavily on fossil fuel inputs, releasing significant CO2 emissions. Ammonia is also toxic and requires careful handling and storage. Limited infrastructure and engine compatibility, require extensive modifications.
Hydrogen produces no greenhouse gas emissions when produced using renewable energy. It can also be a viable option for fuel cell vehicles, providing long driving ranges.
It is highly versatile, applicable to various sectors like transport and power generation.
But it requires large-scale infrastructure updates for production, storage, and distribution as well as an energy-intensive production process, often relying on natural gas, leading to CO2 emissions. There is also the high cost of hydrogen production to be considered compared to other energy sources.
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is widely available and abundant. It offers reduced greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional fossil fuels and existing infrastructure can be retrofitted for LNG use.
But critics say LNG extraction can lead to methane leaks, a potent greenhouse gas as well as high carbon emissions during the refining process. Long-distance transport and storage require specialised infrastructure.
Propane remains a versatile fuel source used for heating, cooking, and transport. Its use reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline or diesel. And it boasts of competitive pricing and a well-developed supply infrastructure.
But propane production also relies heavily on fossil fuel extraction. It has lower energy content than gasoline, thus reduced fuel efficiency. It also suffers from the limited availability of refueling stations for transport.
Finally, there is "sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) that offers a drop-in solution for reducing aviation emissions without requiring engine modifications. It can also be produced from various feedstocks, including waste oils and agricultural residues. Bio-based SAF can also lower lifecycle carbon emissions compared to traditional aviation fuel.
But SAF is cursed with high production costs compared to conventional jet fuel. There is also its limited availability to consider that limits widespread adoption. There are also concerns about feedstock competition, reducing food supplies.
In the bureaucratic quest for eco-friendly fuel, each carries its unique advantages and drawbacks. The availability and relative cost of these alternatives vary depending on existing infrastructure and regional resources.
One must also evaluate costs and technological advancements associated with each fuel to determine the most suitable solution for each sector.
Collaboration between governments, industry stakeholders, and research institutions has become the bureaucratic imperative of our life and times. |
