Why cargo giant Maersk is investing millions in methanol-fuelled ships | Transforming Business
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 06. 2024
- Maersk is investing in 19 new container ships that will be fueled with methanol. But it's a controversial alternative fuel to oil. The world's second biggest shipping company runs around 700 container ships in total. Is it a serious investment in the future? Transforming Business takes a look at what's behind the news.
Chapters:
00:00 Intro
01:03 Europe's biggest seaport
02:11 A new dual-fuel motor
03:00 Customer driven change
03:54 Methanol: the right choice?
05:18 A political push
07:01 The Panama Canal
08:00 The cost of change
09:17 Maersk: Serious or greenwashing?
Subscribe: czcams.com/users/deutsche...
For more news go to: www.dw.com/en/
Follow DW on social media:
►Facebook: / deutschewellenews
►Twitter: / dwnews
►Instagram: / dwnews
►Twitch: / dwnews_hangout
Für Videos in deutscher Sprache besuchen Sie: / dwdeutsch
#TransformingBusiness #Maersk #methanol
Even if it is a tiny bit better, this is progress. The scale of those ships is so huge that this is a big deal
How much carbon is produced or used to generate carbon free energy 🤡
In the perspective of alternative liquid energy carriers for flexible and safe usage, methanol has many advantages. Methanol as the simplest alcohol is the most effective carrier for liquid bound hydrogen (at moderate temperature and atmospheric pressure) in regards of molecular hydrogen-carbon weight ratio and environmental friendliness. Many microorganism need methanol as nutrition to work properly (e.g. bacteria's in sewage plants) or just have a look at the nature, where megatons of methanol is emitted by our green plants year by year as a product of photo synthesis and is used by other plants and microorganism in their nutrition and energy life-cycles.
Renewable methanol as a liquid energy has the big advantage of a "one for all"-feed-stock. We can use it either as fuel for fuel cells or in conventional thermal application or as a fuel blend in a high variety of concentration. Also new plastic products will be made from renewable made methanol (e.g. LEGO). One product who can cover many applications and use existing infrastructures for storage and distribution. This is very important in a sustainable thinking of re-using existing infrastructure and the way we can smoothly transform from "old technology" to the new energy applications in a holistic view of new solutions. But yes there is the important question, how and where we will get the energy to produce renewable methanol? Well, why not copy the energy efficient principles of nature for that (e.g. methanology.com, synhelion.com)
4:45 The poster/flass behind her is the global mean temperature over time. List to her, she lives and breathes sustainability.
They didn’t mention the biggest drawback of methanol, which is it’s less than half as energy dense than diesel. So you’ll need 2x the size tank to go as far. That means higher costs for shipped goods.
6
Agreed but the goal isnt to switch at 100%, its to have a small percentage of a green fuel, like in plains, and acting at this scales, a reduction of emissions of just using 4% of green fuels in boats and plains can reduce nearly 0.1% global al emissions which is huge
China using electric trains to ship to eu,
@@joelimbergamo639 the goal is to restrict shipping competition by increasing compliance costs, I can see eu banning non green shipping
@@bedeorama9881 For now they are asking for a 2% renewable sourced fuel by 3040 (I think). And if for once companies objectives are alligned with people objectives its a good thing and I dont think in the long term is gonna affect competition.
How about starting to get rid of heavy fuel oil and using something like diesel. No ship or port modification is needed.
Why doesn't the subtitles work after 3:00 ??
2:48 This woman made my day 😂
I hope it's successful.
Where biomass is created as a biproduct in sufficient quantities to improve soils, salt affected (often desert) soils _(which are often barely soils but barren)_ can remove salt-affected ground _(a big task)_ and then make soils from the humic material atop it and grow alcohol cash crops (or lipids and sugars) often in blistering hot conditions but the ground temperature is shaded and increases the probability of rain falling to hit the ground before evaporation might have otherwise prevented it _(which is what currently happens)._ It means however that methanol and ethanol are made. Methanoic acid is a useful biproduct such as for ice removal. Cocounut and sandalwood are amongst some salt tolerant crops. Some lignite coke can yield germanium as a biproduct worth keeping _(electronics, especially spectral analysis computing, etc.)._ The more cash crops however, the less the need for the coke oven gas. With designing, a vessel with more than one fueling mechanism can travel to the waste plastics in the seas and collect and convert the plastics into fuel by pyrolysis in large amounts and use it for propulsion.
My comment has no hate in it and I do no harm. I am not appalled or afraid, boasting or envying or complaining... Just saying. Psalms23: Giving thanks and praise to the Lord and peace and love. Also, I'd say Matthew6.
Longer term an interesting engine would be one which uses methanol and oxygen rather than air (maybe add the oxygen to an exhaust gas recycle stream).
Exhaust CO2 can then be separated and returned to port to make more e-methanol.
For really big ships use a direct SCO2 turbine to do similar, even easier to separate and return starting from pressurised CO2.
No bio source of CO2 nor DAC needed, the CO2 becomes contained and circular.
Interesting. I think "SCO2" refers to supercritical carbon dioxide (also styled sCO2). Some references to research would be helpful, if somebody could provide them.
To those who complain about why 19 ships only out of 700, when you run a 100m race you do with one 100m step or what?
Or what
Green fuel can become THE engine of improving the lives of the poorest of the people. By utilizing waste in the big cities of Africa and replanting in the deserts of the world. And, hey, as a Dane who have had my views heard in Maersk in former times: It's possible. And its long overdue. Yet Maersk and its competitors spans the entire globe. What a mighty engine. Of transformation.
Seems like nobody has heard about the world famous ship Savannah. 😢
they ought to put more into RnD to create even more efficient Methanol Fuel Cells? Once we get 70% efficiency, we should ought to just stick to FCEVs using electric motors for propulsion on both water and land and use much smaller batteries unlike a BEV? Also ships are big enuff and just by being on water could they not capture CO2 from water (currently easier than capturing from air) and turn that to Green Methanol on the go? I believe i read a recent research article mentioning the US Navy doing this? Btw there is a FCEV Methanol powered sports car called Gumpert Nathalie built by a legendary german engineer i believe..
That was thought exactly. With an high efficiency methanol fuel cell (rather an old fashioned IC motor) you can have an all- electric ship with all the advantages of that solution (efficiency, steady operation, compactness, etc...)
Where's the audio
Nice
The transition is near shoring not green shipping.
How about installing solar panels on top of the ship to reduce some of the green house fuel consumption?
It's full of containers
Not enough room, for useful amounts of power.
if maersk chose ammonia ships, it got net 0. but if methanol, net minus. green methanol is net 0. and it capture co2 after burnning methanol then.. net minus. that make maersk can operate still good ships which use fossil fuel with net 0.
If regular engine is power with compress air+fuel only 25 % fuel is needed,now compress air can be produced in open sea and mid ocean
refueling ,the trick is dessing a energy harvesting vessel probably sail, kites,,solar if a vessel is only used to power a compresor or hidrogen production 50 to 100 mw/h
can be achieved,they will always sail at 90° against the wind.
this company long time , ancient times in our waters South Africa, and on land
At least it's use for transport seems better than hydrogen. One should apply the same critical eye to hydrogen too.
hydrogen is a scam
Can i know about trades, where do the ships usually travel as maybe if a created assumption like "Indonesia and Malaysia" Only maybe? Because heard as have 4m Japanese then "alot of indonesians and malaysians in singapore should be wrong".
It makes sense in a way like: marina square have Japanese Company maybe and it is Popular Area, "Best Denki". It is maybe famous area of having "Authority Type of People" maybe in a Judgement-Belief. Pan Pacific Hotel Sounds very High Class then The Restaurant seen as Sold Odd Food level of like Scorpions-Level(is it a Takeover Movement?).
Why can't fermentation generated methanol be used? It is a waste product of spirit distillation (vodka, rum, whiskey, etc). It is also a waste product of charcoal production; being made by the pyrolysis and distillation of woody plant material such as the discarded branches from logging, the stems and leaves of food crops, paper waste and the scrap lumber from construction and demolition projects. Methanol is also called Wood Alcohol for a reason; we've been refining this method for the past 5000 years. We can now also capture the gaceous byproducts (methane, and CO) to use as an alternative to LNG and propane. While it does take thermal energy to run the process, recycling the tar and a portion of the charcoal to run the process will still net much more usable fuel.
It can't produce all of the fuel we need, but it is A method that will clean uo other industries by using their waste.
I believe fermentation-generated methanol is called bio-methanol, and along with electrolysis-based e-methanol it is mentioned in the article. Maersk is also sourcing some of it future green methanol from bio-methanol. The problem is that its potential for scaling is more limited than e-methanol, the feedstock is finite and the world would soon run out of land for photosynthesis if it relied only on bio-methanol to replace fossil fuels. This would also compete with food-growing uses of land, driving up the cost of food which would impact food-importing countries a lot. So it looks like bio-methanol will only be viable in a transition stage until a production pipeline to generate affordable e-methanol can be put in place. What is "affordable" in a world dealing with a crisis of global-heating changes over time. The cost of not acting or continuously postponing action is even less "affordable".
For now LNG dual fue ships is the way to go and then fully transition to hydrogen powered ships..
hydrogen is a scam
It will be one of the Sulphur Poor products, in distilling the products of Fischer-Tropsch.
Combine it with Ethanol, and you have a brilliant amount.
I don’t care paying more for a beer.
Lol. That's not the case with MOST people - emphasis on the word MOST. Recent Feul price hikes have sent the approval ratings of western politicians on a downward spiral. They are afraid their careers would go downhill. Many people will not be willing to pay more for what they currently enjoy
The cost of green methanol will depend on how its produced and how much is produced. Methanol will be needed to replace fuel for ships, to replace natural gas for natural gas electric power plants and for the production of synthetic jet fuel. And, of course, methanol will still be needed for the production polymers like plastics.
In the long run, methanol produced from remotely sited floating nuclear power plants will probably be the cheapest since tens of thousands of reactors would be required to replace fossil fuels. And that would reduce the capital cost of nuclear reactors-- dramatically-- which would also dramatically reduce the cost of producing methanol.
The most expensive source of CO2 for manufacturing methanol would come from direct air capture. But the cheapest source of CO2 could come from the capture of flu gases from methanol electric power plants. Such a recycling of CO2 (originating from air) would make methanol for electricity production-- carbon negative.
i lke it
Fusion reactor for 🚢
We have been using
Why not green ammonia
the burning of methane gives off MORE CO2 than diesel most green ethanol comez from sunflower oil
Not at all. 7% less co2, 99% less Sulphur, 40% less Nox
Hardily any commercial Methanol comes from biomass, it is a by-product of coal.
It does not need to be methanol or ammonia as shipping fuel. It can be methanol and ammonia that can be developed in tandem
Methanol is highly poisonous. How is that green?
So is every other fuel, haven't you noticed.
Hundreds of workers used to die every year when they used heavy bunker fuel, Methanol I'd way less toxic exhaust.
Great! Reduce emissions where it counts!
Opting for methanol, biofuels is a positive movement. The shipping sector needs to address the issue of abandoned vessels...so chemically fouled, asbestos burdened that no metal salvage firm will touch them. These vessels are abandoned along the coast of Africa. Ownership near impossible to ascertain. Responsibility for abandoning just as difficult.
One ship using methanol...one adaptation to biofuels is "move", but Maersk is conducting a considerable amount of "green washing" for the shipping industry.
Or they could just switch them over to nuclear power. They need such a relatively small amount of power compared to a carrier.
Safety and Cost of manufacturing a nuke ship are extremely important factors. If the shippers are not adopting best practices and safety protocols they can create irreversible nuke accidents.
I'd prefer to have the reactor on the ground producing methanol. I don't want hijackers to have the opportunity to hijack a nuclear ship.
What advantages does ammonia have over methanol?
No carbon inside
@@sunquake nox is worse for global warming than carbon
Why no hydrogen?
Definitely NO. But I also have no idea what is the possible solution.
Maybe nuclear is the answer.
@@hafizuddinmohdlowhim8426 are you proposing nuclear container ships?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@martinlund7987 as I said, I have no idea for this challenge.
Let MAERSK invest the money on methanol-fuelled ships. Sure they have good intention to continue their business on marine transport. Will the MAERSK efforts be solution on energy crisis? I think not, at least following the path they have chosen to produce ethanol from CO2 and hydrogen. These will need more primary energy than actually the economy use. To produce 1 unit energy methanol 1.59 to 1.74 unit energy must be used. However this will be good for Maritime transport businesses, including MAERSK. They will discharge the higher cost to their consumers and finally this cost and profit will be paid by household consumers. These are the end of the TAIL who really pay on the end of every transaction.
The energy shortage and energy crisis which is crumbling the wellbeing, as well as the solution problems from fossil fuels can be solved only investing the money on effective renewable energies. These paths are a) Levitation-Gravity energy generation (not disclosed technology), b) nuclear energy using fission which must be proportional with Uranium reserves, and c) Hydrogen storing or other new effective technologies.
Respectful will be everyone to change my mind with scientific arguments.
Methanol in our race cars for years.
Will have no impact I’m afraid.
Well it's a start I guess. Better than nothing.
Why not diversify shipping stuff across the world from China and restart another industrial revolution within the EU. It would help immensely to lift eastern European countries out of poverty and revive economically depressed areas. This shipping madness is in the hands of a few powerful companies and it's carbon foot print is adding immensely to global warming. Air traffic is no different.
The time scale for "another industrial revolution" will take longer than 2050. The world needs to reach net zero within the next 30 years, and any longer-term transitions will have to come later. Shifting industrial production is not an alternative, it is an additional measure for the generation after net zero carbon emissions.
@@fbkintanar How to reach net zero emissions with the worlds manufacturing base located in one country powered by over 1,400 coal fired power houses and still building more? China has been importing all energy products and materials used to manufacture Amazon's goods for word consumption. Produce and manufacture locally and reduce globalization from which only bankers, shipping magnates and OPEC is benefiting the most. I have no sympathy for Mearsk or others who run a monoply in global shipping and made windfall profits bigger as some countries annual GDP.
Why not hybrid electric power running on ethanol ?
The aviation industry is moving in that direction.
Roles Royce has developed a hybrid electric turbine for that purpose.
Ethanol is 80% cleaner than typical aviation fuel.
You ever seen the size of a container ship compared to the largest plane?
@@nigel493 I'm talking about aeroplanes 🛫
Yes, bioethanol is the solution.
Solar panels atop the containers would drive electric motors directly to save fuel used 😊.
Try and look up the size of those engines
@@natbirchall1580 good work. In this alternate energy stuff, we see the number of mega watts saved in a six-month trip. I've had the same response from other industries ( hospitals) too. It's obvious that solar won't generate power for their equipment. However, it would power ⚡ lights, fans, and elevators through the day.
I don't think this solves anything , It just makes the problem of over consuming seem less polluting.
We are economiccaly racing to a point that when we get there will turn out to be a place we don't want to be. 😐
There is no 30-year pathway to reducing consumption enough to reach net-zero. If the world will transition to less consumption, it will have to happen after achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
@@fbkintanar Not if you don't want there to be one .
Can globalisation be carbon zero?
What raw material to produce methanol?
Watch the video 🙄
anything organic
Depends on the production method.
If they talk about renewable methanol, they mostly mean methanol from power to liquid. Which needs water and CO2. And a lot of electricity.
3:55
Have ur comment but laud the commitment
Wasn`t methanol actually worse for the enviroment?
Well they are using it as a fuel. Not releasing it into the environment
@@nigel493 In addition, if methanol leaks into the environment in small amounts, it is not particularly toxic, as mentioned in the video. Plants generate and release methanol all the time, the biosphere has existing ways to deal with it. The feed stock of methanol production is what can make it bad for the environment. Currently, industrial methanol mostly comes from fossil fuel refineries, and adds to carbon dioxide emissions when it is burned or leaks out. What Maersk and others are proposing to use is green methanol, sourced from biomass fermentation or electrolysis. In the early years and decades, even green methanol won't be fully carbon neutral (consider the steel used in the plants), but it is a step in the right direction.
You might be thinking of "methane"? Yes, "natural gas" methane (CH₄) is some 80X worse than CO₂ in green house potency! It emits carbon when burnt (obviously). But methane itself is a gaseous substance that absolutely will want to escape any vessel or pipe its contained in.
There are some 2-million miles of natural gas in just the US alone and that's plenty of opportunity for it to leak through valves and connectors. As well as from natural gas processing facilities and its mining supply chain. This leaking is known as the "fugitive emissions" problem and is responsible for some 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions per year on a purely waste stream.
I don´t believe the there will be that much shipping in the future. At the end, it is all that cheap rubish produced in china and others and shipped to here that has is the essence of the issue of global climate change. We will have to relocalise some of the production here, in order to reduce all that waste and dependancy ...
But every bit helps
Absolutely right. This global world order is only benefiting China, bankers, OPEC and shipping magnets. Mearsk has alone 700 ships in their fleet and reaps windfall profits bigger than some countries GDP. Bring production and manufacturing onshore and ships and planes will spew less emissions delivering China chunk via Amazon to your door steps. There's no reason in 2023 for certain parts in Europe having extreme poverty and high unemployment rates which only benefits the radical left wing politicians.
e-methanol will always be more expensive than using electrolysis-derived hydrogen directly (fuel cell or direct combustion or both), and using electricity directly will always be cheaper. But large ship-sized engines for methanol can be ordered today, and ammonia engines cannot. So, I think the Maersk leadership deserves more credit for taking the bold decision it has, when the IMO and everybody else is dithering even as our common home is burning. If ammonia or direct hydrogen or some other future technology becomes cheaper later, nothing is stopping the world and Maersk from shifting to it in the future. By guaranteeing would-be producers future sales, they are creating a market for e-methanol as rapidly as possible. This will be a benefit for whole world, even if later the electrolysis production that it stimulates shifts to ammonia or just hydrogen or something else.
The hard decisions of the decarbonization transition would all be made a lot easier if the world, or even just the major carbon polluters, would agree on a suitable carbon price implemented through carbon credit markets, taxation and border adjustment tariffs. The argument that "the technology is still too expensive, let's wait for something better" just doesn't work when with every passing year the cost of fixing the problem at source gets more expensive. The world's carbon emission have not even plateaued yet, and there is a small window for acting to turn things around before the costs of both mitigation and adaptation get dramatically higher and still inevitable.
Our generation has to act to reach net zero and not pass the burden to future generations. We are already burdening several future generations with finding a way to transitioning further to a civilized world with negative emissions. A governable and sustainable economy will not be possible without reversing the overshoot of emissions already locked in with the production systems in place and in the pipeline. The world needs to bite the bullet and achieve net zero over the next thirty years, because it will be hard enough for the following generations to get carbon dioxide levels back down to a safe concentration. Hansen and others think that is 350 ppm, I haven't seen research showing that a higher concentration is good enough.
Methanol will not make the ships carbon neutral. They will need to build electric ships powered by wind and solar onboard.
Wind powered ships!
**Container vessels are a small part of the world fleet whether measured in DWT or any other metric. **
The dry and wet bulk trades constitute the lion’s share of total tone miles. It’s difficult to accuse Maersk of greenwashing when they are making major capital investments that are depreciated over 20 years.
So using fossil fuels to boil water thats treats natural gas (another fossil fuel) to make methanol. Wow soo green (sarcasm)
Why methanol and not ethanol ships?
The latter is less harmful.
Because human also consume ethanol in large quantities.
less energy to make methanol
The cost of inaction on climate change and pollution is much bigger than the price of climate change mitigation
Yes, and this has been true for the last 30 years since the Rio Summit where the participating countries passed a resolution to reduce carbon emissions in order to avoid dangerous climate change. If the world the world had acted as quickly as it did on ozone-depleting chemicals (the Montreal protocol), we would be half way to a solution by now, and the transition costs would have been significantly lower. As it is, carbon emissions have not yet peaked. But all that is water under the bridge, it has already happened and we can't change the past. Urgent action today is what matters.
Methanol does look like a contender for second best choice for vehicles too big and too far reaching for pure battery operation. Of course, the best choice (nuclear power) is not politically viable.
The map had shown all the geopolitical choke points on those trade routes.
This professor is a terrible source, no idea on the technology, options and claiming toxic ammonia which is thousands of times more toxic than methanol in water, he is just doesnt know what he is talking about
What's the point? Burning methanol still produces CO2 and water. Same for any biofuels/ Burning of any fuel, no matter what its source. releases CO2. How do you ever get around that basic chemistry???
The idea is the CO2 to make the Methanol is captured from the environment. And the energy to do so is from renewables. Therefore net zero.
But even though it has an outsized effect on the environment, there's not actually that much of it in air compared to Nitrogen, which is the feed stock for Ammonia. Hence why the talking head said that was a better synthetic fuel to use.
Seriously? Did you even watch it?
@@spateri728 I don't really think it can ever be net zero. But point taken. It;' the best they can do. :-)
Carbon neutrality is a fallacy 😂. Either you produce or consume products that produce carbon or you don’t. So when you buy a product from abroad that a company claims to be carbon neutral don’t buy into the lies.
Let the apocaclysm come! It's what human species wants&deserves!
Can dogs be carbon neutral? Can cats be carbon neutral? Can the existence of 8billions of people be carbon neutral?
I think we should be more environmental friendly. But I'm sceptical and frustrated because media is forcing it through as if it is only a matter of price. No. Many people are pushing CO2 neutral by adopting methods that create more CO2 in the whole life cycle, produce more pollution in the full supply chain, while making most people poorer at the same time. But they say, never mind, if you've not doing all these, you're anti-science.
Frankly speaking, "carbon neutral" is a hype that obstruct a more holistic and balanced discussion of human development sustainability.
So you don't believe in science?
Money is not an excuse. We can print infinite amount of money to make the world carbon neutral.
@Spring Water: Okay boomer
Sure if they don't sail.what a joke..
Bad news
MAN is a terrific engine manufacturer. Wonders how Wärtsila are handling the situation ...
This is called missing the forest for the trees. Rendering the global climate hostile to its inhabitants is caused by an exponential increase in human activity. So decarbonization of production and trade are necessary but not sufficient conditions for maintaining a liveable biosphere. A reduction in the quantity of trade, or a change in the structure of production and consumption are equally, or perhaps more crucial.
Will a elephant stop farting. No.
Why not nuclear power, ships could travel faster and never need to be refueled, zero emissions for the running life of the ship, there is just the 1.5 tonnes of co2 produced for every tonne of steel used to build the ship? So becoming carbon nuteral is impossible, 😊
Most countries are not willing to allow a nuclear reactor in their country.
This is one of many reasons why they don’t use nuclear power for trade ships 😉
@@Aloh-od3ef if they want to tackle climate change then they are going to have to accept nuclear power ships,
giving nuclear material/waste to a bunch of private companies might not be a good idea
@@Supasweet95 you can regulate nuclear material, infact they do now,
@@blizzard5657 Maybe they could have Merchant Marine or some quasi government group operate and protect nuclear powered transport.
can TV channels be carbon neutral?
Good question!
Europe is done 😂
Russia will be destroyed soon.
Stop using oil in ships!
Replace it with a man made product.
Which will require huge amounts of desperately needed farm land.
The land will be farmed with tractors and farm equipment that require OIL.
Then simply transport it to a dock. Using vehicles that require OIL to work. Including batteries vehicles…..
They really have not thought this through 😂😂😂
Food Shortage
I suggest you watch the video before posting BS.
Shipping industry can go more GREEN 🟢 if customers are willing to slow down.. And wait!!
A decade ago, ships were forced to speed up to 25 knots burning 🔥a lot more... Why?
Why not sail ⛵ at 10 knots and use WIND 🌬
👀🧞 shipping
Should have nuclear power reactors & technology exist over 60 years thanks to magnificent
🇷🇺 Russian 🇷🇺
Why not hydrogen?