Fossil-FuelQ-A

Subject	Question	Answer	Source
Environmental Considerations	Emission levels	During the carbon capture, extra energy will be consumed to run the process, causing release of additional carbon emissions. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the performance of CCS while considering the extra energy used and additional emission released. The CO2 capture rates, determined for the reference cases studied in this project, are likely to be between 10% and 60%, but can potentially reach 90%. Crucially, SOx and NOx emissions can also be significantly reduced through the same technologies.
	Life-cycle assessment (LCA) Current IMO regulations address only emissions occurring on ships, but there is growing pressure for a full LCA methodology to assess Well to Wake (WtW) emissions. These would take into account both direct emissions from the ship (Tank to Wake, or TtW), and emissions from the production and distribution of fuels (Well to Tank or WtT).	For Life-cycle assessment of fossil fuels with CCS, kindly refer to the PDF attachments.	CO2 – LCA Evaluation Tool for Carbon Reduction in Marine Industry, page 7-8 CO2 – LCA Evaluation Tool for Carbon Reduction in Marine Industry, page 1-3 CCS - CO2ASTS Report, page 1-5
	Environmental factors (in particular those affecting coastal and port communities)	For environmental factors of fossil fuels with CCS, kindly refer to the PDF attachments.	CO2 – LCA Evaluation Tool for Carbon Reduction in Marine Industry, page 7-8 CO2 – LCA Evaluation Tool for Carbon Reduction in Marine Industry, page 1-3 CCS - CO2ASTS Report, page 1-5
	Expected savings in GHG emissions and how is it verified/ recorded	For GHG emissions of fossil fuels with CCS, kindly refer to the PDF attachments.	CO2 – LCA Evaluation Tool for Carbon Reduction in Marine Industry, page 7-8 CO2 – LCA Evaluation Tool for Carbon Reduction in Marine Industry, page 1-3 CCS - CO2ASTS Report, page 1-5 Expected savings in GHG emissions
	Energy content	Energy content of fossil fuels are as per below table:
Technology as Marine Fuel use	Quality parameters to be met (basic properties, flammability, toxicity considerations).	Conventional fuels follow existing guidelines, as do emulsion fuel derivatives with variations to ISO 8217 (e.g. to density and water) agreed on a case by case basis with buyer. Water specifications for emulsion fuel production to follow diesel engine OEM guidelines.	Appendix C
	Technology development status: Current status of engine development and fuel cell systems for using alternative fuels	Diesel engines: Existing technology is proven for FF use diesel engines to meet current standards. Fuel cell systems: Fuel cells typically use hydrogen or a hydrogen-rich fuel such as methanol. Hydrogen fuel cells are in development at a small scale up to 1MW[1] but requires hydrogen infrastructure – which should be blue or ideally green to be fully sustainable. Fuel cells offer higher efficiency than diesel engines (~60% vs 40%), especially at low loads, so a potential transition solution. Likely to be used together with batteries (as hybrids).	Ballard
		CO2 scrubbers (CCS) & DAC: In development at small scale up to 1MW[1] for marine sector, although more widespread use at larger-scale for land-based applications. Feasibility studies carried out on CCS by CO2ASTS indicate potential CO2 reduction costs of €150-300/t using a main scrubber system with cryogenic CO2 storage on LNG fuelled vessels[2]. A potential transition solution if the technology can be combined with SOx EGCS in Open Loop/ Closed Loop / Hybrid Versions, and solutions found for storage/sale/discharge of effluents containing Sulphur and Carbon. CALIX RECAST is promoting a fuel agnostic solution offering reduction costs of €40-70/t CO2 based on lime as a regenerable sorbent, a downside being reduction in cargo space by 5-9% for the system on retrofits[3]. One of the main challenges will be building reliable systems that effectively capture CO2 and designing storage tanks for the emissions so that they can be transported back to shore in some form[4].	Wartsila K-Line Public Concise Report EasyChair Euractiv
	Types of vessels using technology/ best suited for technology.	Diesel engines: All vessels. Fuel cell systems: Small scale applications up to 1MW[1] (auxiliary loads, cold ironing smaller inland vessels). Hybrid options needed for larger applications. CO2 scrubbers (CCS) & DAC: Likely to follow similar trend to SOx EGCS, i.e. larger deep-sea point to point vessels such as Containerships, ROROs etc.	Ballard
	Retrofit requirements, timelines and costs	Diesel engines: None, no incremental time/cost. Fuel cell systems: For auxiliary power, potential containerized systems are still under development and testing. For propulsion more likely to be for newbuilds. Timelines/costs TBC. For all applications the bigger issue will be hydrogen supply and storage. CO2 scrubbers (CCS) & DAC: If viable, likely to follow similar timelines as Sox EGCS, with costs dependent on CO2 capture and most important storage requirements of sorbent.
	Safety issues. Managing the hazards and associated risks related to the shipboard application. What are some of the appropriate safeguards that can be put in place onboard?	Diesel engines: None, safety issues fully understood (including fuel compatibility). Fuel cell systems: For all applications the largest risk will be hydrogen supply and storage. CO2 scrubbers (CCS) & DAC: If viable, likely to follow similar risks and safeguards as Sox EGCS, dependent on CO2 capture method and specific requirements of sorbent.
	Operational issues (e.g. extra lubricants, higher MT/Hour equivalent consumption to traditional fuel -and alternatives-, adding/exchanging spare parts, software or subscriptions in order to record and report verifiable emissions savings).	Diesel engines: None. Fuel cell systems: No lubricant requirements. >30% lower MJ/hour consumption due to higher efficiency. Less spare parts and maintenance likely as technology matures. CO2 scrubbers (CCS) & DAC: Likely lead to higher MJ/hour fuel consumption to power EGCS for CCS and any cryogenic storage of liquid CO2 (if needed). Maintenance likely to increase as % CAPEX for CCS. Reporting likely to follow SOx EGCS example.
	Differentiation between short and deep-sea shipping.	Diesel engines: All. Fuel cell systems: Likely to be inland and short-sea shipping. CO2 scrubbers (CCS) & DAC: Likely to follow SOx EGCS and be used for deep-sea shipping.
Laws and Regulations	Current legislation and policies (IMO, EU, national and regional regulations).	Fossil fuels used in international shipping fall under the IMO’s MAROL Annex VI regulation. Most oil-based fuels in use fall under the ISO 8217 Marine Fuels Specification, but may diverge from this standard under a commercial agreement between parties. MARPOL Annex IV stipulates a 0.10% sulphur limit in designated emission control areas (ECAs) and a 0.50% sulphur limit outside ECAs. The majority of fuels in use now fall under the 0.50% sulphur limit. Fuels above 0.50% sulphur are still allowed in use, provided the vessels are equipped with sulphur emissions abatement technologies such as exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS/scrubbers), which have become the go-to sulphur emissions abatement technology. The systems primarily use a combination of sea water and chemicals to reduce sulphur emissions. The systems can operate in open loop, closed loop and hybrid modes. Scrubbers were already being used in ECAs prior to the implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit globally. Sulphur limits and use of EGCS can be subject national/regional/local regulations. Several ports around the world have banned the use of open loop scrubbers in areas within their jurisdiction. There are multiple areas globally with local rules on sulphur limits and/or the use of scrubbers, including the EU, Norwegian Fjords, Iceland, Turkey, South Korea, China, Australia and California. China, has implemented lower sulphur limits spanning over multiple areas of their coastline.	Marpol Annex VI Emission Control Areas Gard China
Pricing	What is the current US$/MT equivalent? (calorific value adjusted)	Spot pricing ARA for the last 6 months - see source material.	ARA
		Direct comparison between current available “RED advanced FAME 0°C CFPP FOB ARA” biofuel and spot pricing in ARA (weekly average) - see source material.	Bio Pricing
	Projection of Forward Prices	Futures price curve from Global Risk Management- see source material.	Futures Forward curve
		Data for biofuels from the Argus Marine Fuels report - see source material.	Argus Marine Fuels
		See sources ARA, Singapore and Work Paper.	SG and ARA Work Paper