Lessons learnt from greening of shipping

Jussi Mälkiä,
President,
Meriaura Group

In shipping, greenhouse gas emission reductions are now being discussed more than anything else. The pressure is on to extend emission reduction targets and emissions trading to logistics and sea transport.

I have a bad habit of hypothesizing, and looking too much into the past, but as wise men say; history helps us determine how to approach the future. What has gone wrong when trying to meet the environmental and climate challenges in shipping?

About ten years ago, roughly a dozen new goals in environmental regulation were announced to be coming into force within the next decade. No breakthrough solution has been found even for the smallest problems. The one that most of us probably remember the best is the Sulfur Directive. In the preparation a lot of money was spent, and other efforts made, but the overall impacts on the climate and environment were not taken into account. Open loop sulfur scrubbers have transferred sulfur from the air to the sea, which significantly increases the local load, especially in port use. This has led to deterioration of water quality in certain sea areas.

When solutions for environmental problems are looked for one at a time, it is a long and winding road. The hype for LNG began as a solution to cut sulfur emissions. It was also believed to be a more climate-friendly fuel with lower CO2 emissions. Research data on methane slip and its harmfulness to the climate already existed back then, but was ignored by the industry, politicians, and officials. Moreover, it seemed to be forgotten that natural gas is a fossil fuel, that humankind sought to get rid of in the fight against climate change. Now large investments have been made in fossil technology that can be even more harmful to the climate than the “old fashioned” oil-based technology. In addition to the financial side, we have wasted also other resources and precious time in the fight against climate change. There’s hardly any more scientific debate about the benefits of LNG. The balance gets even worse when the whole life cycle is taken into account: there are significant leaks throughout the LNG production chain. Besides the ship engines, methane slip occurs also during the production and transport. We are now tied to this climate-damaging technology and infrastructure, and that is why it is apparently so difficult to admit the mistake. Perhaps that is why greenwashing in the marketing of LNG continues.

All this has resulted in costs and investments for the industry and ship owners, but only little environmental benefit has been achieved. In addition, both, scrubbers and investments on LNG technology were moderately supported by public funds. Therefore, policy makers should understand the big picture, and not solve problems case by case. If we aim to achieve the goals we have set ourselves for carbon neutrality, no more public subsidies, direct or indirect, should be given for solutions based on fossil energy.

CO₂ emissions were on the earlier mentioned list of environmental regulation goals ten years go. But this probably the most significant environmental problem for the future of mankind was left last to solve. Shipping is considered one of the most difficult sectors to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from. We should have started with the largest problem and the smaller ones would have been solved on the side.

The industry has anyway announced a goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. On the large scale there are not yet enough carbon-neutral fuels available. However, bio-oil, biodiesel, hydrogen and its derivatives (i.e. ammonia and methanol) and, as a black horse, nuclear power for large scale ships are already available. An interesting combination worth trying is the hybrid propulsion system that combines bio-oil and batteries, especially for small tonnage on regular routes. We are preparing such a concept in our company, and we have tentatively planned feeder traffic out of Saimaa to seaports. This would provide a carbon neutral green shipping corridor in accordance with the recently signed Clydebank declaration in COP26.

Currently, the most sustainable fuels among the existing renewables are bio-oil and green hydrogen. In principle, biogas could be on this list as well, but methane slip in marine engines also applies to biogas. Biogas, like natural gas, is better suited for other energy production where it burns cleaner.

We need careful consideration whether interim solutions are needed. On the next round we should adopt only near-100% GHG-free solutions, rather than investing in temporary solutions that solve one problem regardless of the overall environmental impact. The time frame in shipping is long, we are tied for decades to the investments. Mankind cannot afford that, not from the ecological nor economical point of view. By now, we should have learned our lesson.

It seems that low-sulfur diesel, existing and commonly in use, is the most viable solution before future technological innovations can be put into practice. At present, with existing equipment and infrastructure and by optimizing resources, we can achieve significant emission reductions in terms of tonne-mile performance: ships sailing utilizing full cargo capacity, slower, and on optimized routes, minimizing ballast voyages. Port operations would require reorganization. It is absurd that at the moment our ships are rushing at sea (that is consuming more fuel and causing more emissions) to get to port to wait.

More sustainable solutions and holistic, ambitious thinking are needed now.

The Clydebank Declaration also recalls fully decarbonized propulsion technologies that should have the capability not to add additional GHGs to the global system through their lifecycle, including production, transport, or consumption. Other factors to consider when planning future shipping are automation, digitization and reviewing and maybe redesigning the whole chain.

Emissions trading and a sufficiently high carbon price will accelerate investments and the advancement of technological innovation. In addition to being supported by governments, fossil energy is far too cheap. Emissions trading for shipping needs to be global, it needs consider not only CO₂ but all GHG emissions and it should include all sizes of commercial trading vessels.

Email: jussi.malkia@meriaura.fi

Expert article 3111

> Back to Baltic Rim Economies 5/2021

To receive the Baltic Rim Economies review free of charge, you may register to the mailing list.
The review is published 4-6 times a year.