An Unlikely Pair: Cows and LNG Powered Ships
This edition looks at why LNG ships are worse for the environment than fossil fuels, the health challenges of Australian truck drivers, common issues with food supply chains worldwide and carbon bombs
LNG Ships, the Not so Climate Friendly Solution
The shipping sector, which accounts for 2% of global emissions, has been in the spotlight for its perceived failure to transition to renewable energy and net zero. Yet, the sector seems to have adapted quicker than expected. Two thirds of the new build shipping order book is now composed of alternative fuel (or dual fuel) ships. 60% of the alternative fuel ships are liquefied natural gas (LNG) powered (with the option of switching to heavy fuel oil). Finally, it seems that there is some good news about the green transition. The green transition is however the gift that keeps on giving and this news about LNG ships is no exception. As it turns out, LNG powered ships generate more carbon emissions than regular ships running on heavy fuel oil.
LNG powered ships are, in fact, dual-fuel ships that can operate both on LNG and on marine gas oil (MGO) or heavy fuel oil (HFO), the most common marine fuels. Engines can be traditional 2-stroke, 4-stroke engines with fuel delivery systems operating at low or high pressure. Other ships are equipped with gas turbines, a practice that appears likely to decline in the near future. While allowing ships to use both fuels (LNG and HFO), these dual fuel engines generate more emissions, especially due to fugitive methane. Methane (CH4) has a global warming potential 28 times higher than CO2 on a 100-year horizon.
In two of the three engine type scenarios, the LNG option performs worse than traditional fossil fuels, by 10-16% in low pressure 2-stroke engine and 40-50% in the low pressure 4-stroke engine. LNG performs marginally better (4-9%) than fossil fuels in the high pressure 2-stroke engine. Note that emissions are evaluated based on a 20-year global warming potential horizon. The case for LNG becomes more appealing when a 100-year global warming potential horizon is considered, it performs up to 20% better than fossil fuels.
You may notice something strange: the climate emergency is now. The planet is suffering now. We need to do something now. Yet, transitioning to LNG-powered vessels now is worse for the environment especially on the short term. To make the planet better, we first need to worsen the environmental situation faster.
Research on LNG-powered trucks reached similar conclusions as that on LNG ships, thus casting further doubt over the fuel’s viability as a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels.
Why then would shipping lines look for LNG to reduce their emissions? One likely answer may be the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) low sulphur fuel regulation which limits maritime fuels to a 0.5% sulphur content. While IMO’s low sulphur regulations may help reduce the amount of sulphur generated by shipping, they may well end up creating another environmental problem. This is an all-too-common theme in the ‘green transition’ world.
But if ships use biogenic LNG (bioLNG), they have a net zero impact! The big if, as with many other green energy solutions, is whether enough biogenic gas can be produced to power the world’s fleet. The answer may lie in another current environmental problem: cows. Livestock production is responsible for almost 15% of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. One cow produces roughly 100 kg of biogenic methane per year. Let’s call these fugitive emissions. Notice a disconnect: methane produced from biological sources is ‘net zero’ when burned in industrial processes, yet it’s a massive environmental problem when released in the form of farts. Anyways, if cows could be somehow connected to fuel tanks and the methane produced would be liquefied, we’d hit two birds with one stone: lowering livestock and shipping emissions!
Australian Truck Drivers’ Health
A recent research paper explored the physical and mental health challenges faced by Australian truck drivers and the results aren’t particularly pretty.
The typical Australian truck driver is a male (97%) employee (85%) working in the industry for more than five years (80%), typically working for more than 40 hours a week (88%), sometimes more than 60 hours a week (37.5%), mostly running multiple trips between the same locations (57%). Four out of five drivers classify as overweight and obese, three out of four of drivers are diagnosed with one or more health conditions and, one in two drivers report moderate or severe psychological distress.
Given these results, it is maybe less surprising that the trucking industry in Australia and worldwide is facing serious driver shortages. Trucking is the backbone of logistics. Whether cargoes need transport over 2,000 or 20 kilometres, a truck will be required at some point in the journey. Initiatives that are seriously aimed at addressing truck driver shortages are critical to maintaining logistics chains operational. I suspect that, as well intentioned as the workforce diversity initiatives may be to attract a wider pool of candidates, the health issues of the job will remain and will continue to affect drivers irrespective of sex, age or race. Companies must weigh the cost of missed sales and delivery delays against the perceived costs of improving truck drivers’ working conditions.
Food Supply Chains Challenges
The Ice Age Farmer YouTube channel posted an interesting analysis of food supply chain challenges (the first 3 minutes of the video summarise the key points). Just as last year a series of disruptions shook fundamental supply chain links (see the Suez Canal, urea & adBlue), this analysis notes similar patterns with food production, ranging from diseases in animals, crops not being planted or food factories accidentally burning down.
Clearly, extreme weather, especially rain, in some parts of the world have certainly helped spread more diseases in livestock and the Russia-Ukraine conflict has tied up access to grains in some markets. However, it is difficult to understand why all of these issues are happening at the same time.
Indian Wheat Exports Ban
India’s decision to ban wheat exports just added fuel to firey discussion of food supply shutdown. This decision comes just days after Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that India was “ready to supply food stocks to the world from tomorrow”. India was forecasted to export over 10 million tonnes of wheat this year and the export ban constrains an already constrained market.
I believe that the wheat export ban tries to decouple Indian wheat from international wheat prices in a protectionist approach to prioritising Indian food security. And, a likely impact of removing these wheat volumes from the international market will be an increase in wheat prices. This, like other food related shortages we are experiencing now, seems artificially created. Russian wheat is available, it’s just not desirable for international and especially Western markets. Ukrainian or Indian wheat is available, just not accessible to international markets. The results, empty shelves, queues and high prices, those are definitely real.
Carbon Bombs
Thanks Paul for pointing this article out.
Shock and awe! The world is ending and that’s according to science!
This recent investigation of fossil fuel projects around the world highlighted 425 projects worldwide that could potentially generate over 1 gigaton of carbon emissions. Planned and underway projects from China, United States, Russia and Saudi-Arabia amount to almost 60% of the carbon bombs emissions. As expected, this article received quite some coverage especially from the Guardian which ran two stories on this investigation, one of which before the article’s print release.
Perhaps more important that the question asked by the study (What are the potential carbon emissions from large scale fossil fuel extraction projects?) are the questions not asked mainly:
How else should energy for transport, manufacturing and household needs be provided?
What would be the environmental impact of equivalent (if any) alternative energy projects over a similar lifespan (oftentimes 40 years or more)?
What are the broader societal outcomes of a failure to cater for energy needs?
Without addressing any of these questions, the study’s conclusions, mainly: “the key strategies are avoiding the activation of new carbon bombs and putting existing ones into ‘harvest mode’”, are nothing more than statements written before the study was conducted. This is because irrespective of the results obtained from applying the study’s methodology, the concluding statement is the same. You may wonder just as I do, where’s the science in that?