4 ms·

>“Twenty or thirty years ago, the shipping industry made a major shift to natural gas, believing it was the fuel of the future. Now, we know it wasn’t the right

>“Twenty or thirty years ago, the shipping industry made a major shift to natural gas, believing it was the fuel of the future. Now, we know it wasn’t the right step,” says Prousalidis. This sentence confuses me. The shipping industry runs on natural gas? If so, why is there regret? My impression is that most systems using natural gas right now are in a good position. What am I missing here?

sidewndr46 2y ago
Almost all shipping by weight is done by burning bunker. By ship quantity, most ships probably actually just burn some variant of diesel. Some do run off natural gas. If you read through industry journals, you can find some point in the late 80s where the industry journals were all reporting about how all ships would need to go back to burning coal soon. I'm pretty sure this was just a fantasy that shipbuilders paid the journals to push as it would mean the opportunity to sell lots of new ships. I doubt the statement you quoted is grounded in any reality.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  I'd thought that several notable ships had been refitted to burn petrol, though I can't find the references I'd had in mind. (I'd think that petrol itself would be a less desirable fuel for some of the same reasons as ammonia: it's heavier-than air, sinks, and burns rapidly or explodes when vapours combine with air.)
looofooo0 2y ago
Batteries are most likely the most feasible option for many applications soon.
iamthemonster 2y ago
Liquefied Natural Gas was expected to be a lower-emission alternative fuel compared to bunker fuel. The proportion of LNG fuelled cargo tankers out there right now is about 2% but for new orders, about 30% of them are LNG fuelled so that small percentage will grow rapidly. However, for United States LNG in particular, the LNG production chain actually has very high emissions of methane. The industry has been fighting to keep that as unclear and unquantified as absolutely possible, and there's a good reason for that - when you take into account the methane emissions along the whole value chain from drilling through liquefaction, LNG's climate impact (in terms of global warming) is no better than coal. I'm sure it's beneficial compared to bunker fuel, but the climate benefit is much much slimmer than first believed.
- Telemakhos 2y ago
  > However, for United States LNG in particular, the LNG production chain actually has very high emissions of methane. I thought LNG was methane. What am I missing here?
  - ethangk 2y ago
    I’d assume they’re talking about methane leaks throughout the supply chain
  - XorNot 2y ago
    No you've got the gist of it: the point is that numbers for CO2 emissions of LNG assume a leak-free supply chain. That's not possible in practice: LNG leaks at almost every single step, and monitoring of it has been inconsistent and poorly implemented. Add in the significantly higher greenhouse effect of methane in the atmosphere, and you lose essentially all the potential benefits (not to mention the ultimate issue of continuing to add sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere - it's still a fossil fuel).
  - gwbas1c 2y ago
    Methane leaks. Unburnt methane has a global warming potential 28 times higher than CO2. (This is why landfills will burn methane buildup, even if they aren't using it to generate electricity or capturing it to resell.)
- dylan604 2y ago
  NASA has been showing methane leaks from satellites built for purpose.[0] I'll give you three guesses as to where the location of the leaks are located, but you'll only need one. Better read the data now before it gets stricken from the record. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/methane-super-emitters-mapped-by-nasas-new-earth-space-mission/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/methane-supe...
  - _aavaa_ 2y ago
    Except most emissions are not leaks. A leak implies an unintended or unwanted behaviour. But most emissions are from indented behaviour of the system. The equipment is. designed to vent to atmosphere as part of normal operation, and it’s not worth it for them to burn it until they have to pay for this pollution.
pjc50 2y ago
The shipping industry only ever dipped slightly into natural gas. There are some CNG/LNG ferries around, but all the long haul stuff in international waters (which is basically lawless) uses bunker fuel.
hannob 2y ago
> What am I missing here? Climate change. Maybe you've heard of it? (And it turns out things with LNG ships are much worse than previously believed. They not only emit CO2 - a bit less than traditional bunker fuel, but not much - they also emit methane, and in no small quantities. The LNG industry likes to pretend that these emissions are small and neglegible, but whenever someone goes out and actually measures them, they are substantial.)
- vvchvb 2y ago
  [dead]
xandrius 2y ago
Natural gas, aka methane, has a big impact on climate change. Don't listen what the gas industry is trying to get everyone to believe, natural gas is as natural as petroil.

sidewndr46 2y ago

Almost all shipping by weight is done by burning bunker. By ship quantity, most ships probably actually just burn some variant of diesel. Some do run off natural gas. If you read through industry journals, you can find some point in the late 80s where the industry journals were all reporting about how all ships would need to go back to burning coal soon. I'm pretty sure this was just a fantasy that shipbuilders paid the journals to push as it would mean the opportunity to sell lots of new ships. I doubt the statement you quoted is grounded in any reality.

dredmorbius 2y ago
I'd thought that several notable ships had been refitted to burn petrol, though I can't find the references I'd had in mind. (I'd think that petrol itself would be a less desirable fuel for some of the same reasons as ammonia: it's heavier-than air, sinks, and burns rapidly or explodes when vapours combine with air.)

looofooo0 2y ago

Batteries are most likely the most feasible option for many applications soon.

iamthemonster 2y ago

Liquefied Natural Gas was expected to be a lower-emission alternative fuel compared to bunker fuel. The proportion of LNG fuelled cargo tankers out there right now is about 2% but for new orders, about 30% of them are LNG fuelled so that small percentage will grow rapidly. However, for United States LNG in particular, the LNG production chain actually has very high emissions of methane. The industry has been fighting to keep that as unclear and unquantified as absolutely possible, and there's a good reason for that - when you take into account the methane emissions along the whole value chain from drilling through liquefaction, LNG's climate impact (in terms of global warming) is no better than coal. I'm sure it's beneficial compared to bunker fuel, but the climate benefit is much much slimmer than first believed.

Telemakhos 2y ago
> However, for United States LNG in particular, the LNG production chain actually has very high emissions of methane. I thought LNG was methane. What am I missing here?
- ethangk 2y ago
  I’d assume they’re talking about methane leaks throughout the supply chain
- XorNot 2y ago
  No you've got the gist of it: the point is that numbers for CO2 emissions of LNG assume a leak-free supply chain. That's not possible in practice: LNG leaks at almost every single step, and monitoring of it has been inconsistent and poorly implemented. Add in the significantly higher greenhouse effect of methane in the atmosphere, and you lose essentially all the potential benefits (not to mention the ultimate issue of continuing to add sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere - it's still a fossil fuel).
- gwbas1c 2y ago
  Methane leaks. Unburnt methane has a global warming potential 28 times higher than CO2. (This is why landfills will burn methane buildup, even if they aren't using it to generate electricity or capturing it to resell.)
dylan604 2y ago
NASA has been showing methane leaks from satellites built for purpose.[0] I'll give you three guesses as to where the location of the leaks are located, but you'll only need one. Better read the data now before it gets stricken from the record. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/methane-super-emitters-mapped-by-nasas-new-earth-space-mission/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/methane-supe...
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  Except most emissions are not leaks. A leak implies an unintended or unwanted behaviour. But most emissions are from indented behaviour of the system. The equipment is. designed to vent to atmosphere as part of normal operation, and it’s not worth it for them to burn it until they have to pay for this pollution.

pjc50 2y ago

The shipping industry only ever dipped slightly into natural gas. There are some CNG/LNG ferries around, but all the long haul stuff in international waters (which is basically lawless) uses bunker fuel.

hannob 2y ago

> What am I missing here? Climate change. Maybe you've heard of it? (And it turns out things with LNG ships are much worse than previously believed. They not only emit CO2 - a bit less than traditional bunker fuel, but not much - they also emit methane, and in no small quantities. The LNG industry likes to pretend that these emissions are small and neglegible, but whenever someone goes out and actually measures them, they are substantial.)

vvchvb 2y ago
[dead]

xandrius 2y ago

Natural gas, aka methane, has a big impact on climate change. Don't listen what the gas industry is trying to get everyone to believe, natural gas is as natural as petroil.