Engineer and shipping fuel expert Dr Thomas Beard tells maritime leaders in Liverpool that decarbonising global shipping is proving both costly and complex. Tony McDonough reports
Pound for pound the global shipping industry is certainly not one of the main culprits when it comes to carbon emissions and human-induced climate change.
Despite the maritime sector handling 90% of the world’s trade it accounts for just 3% of all human CO2 emissions. However, the industry still has to do its bit to combat global warming and has committed to become net zero by 2050.
But the cost and complexity of this transition is immense and the industry faces huge challenges over the coming decades if it is to be successful in its efforts to decarbonise global shipping.
That is the stark message offered by Dr Thomas Beard, a chartered engineer and the clean maritime lead at BMT, as well as the BMT Global lead on alternative fuels. BMT is a leading international design, engineering, science and risk management consultancy.
Dr Beard was addressing Liverpool city region maritime leaders at the monthly Mersey Maritime Face-2-Face networking event which this month was held on the main campus of Liverpool John Moores University.
Although the technical challenges may be complex, the overall problem is simple… container ships, tankers, cargo vessels are all big and heavy and require a lot of energy to move from A to B, which can often be thousands of miles.
Fossil fuels are perfect for the job but in the coming years they will cease to be an option. There are alternatives but when we look at the choices it is obvious there are no clear winners.
Electricity is the cleanest way of powering transport but when you have something as big as a ship, or a passenger plane, the current size, weight and charging capacity of batteries makes it unsuitable for all but short sea commercial shipping.
“This is a very big passion of mine,” said Dr Beard, who is also a member of the two UK maritime hydrogen working groups, co-chairing the National Maritime group, and is on the steering group for a research program on ammonia in maritime.
“The International Maritime Organisation (a branch of the United Nations) wants a minimum 20%, but is striving for 40%, reduction in emissions by 2030 and 70% to 80% by 2040,” he added.
“We can use energy-saving or energy-efficient technologies on vessels to try to drop that. That is feasible if the vessels operate the way they are supposed to – but not all of them do and that immediately gives us an issue.
“The IMO is hoping for 5% to 10% conversion to alternative fuels by 2030. An alternative fuel is basically anything that is not derived from fossil fuels. Hydrogen, ammonia and methanol all count – but only if they are the green variants.
“But the only way we get to net zero by 2050 is by changing fuels.”
Dr Beard said the industry was in a “chicken or egg” situation between ports and vessels. What comes first – the vessels or the port infrastructure? He explained: “It is all centred around finances because if it doesn’t work for someone economically, they won’t do it.
“At the moment all these alternative fuels cost a lot more so we are going to have to start taxing or introducing regulation that will drive the cost of fossil fuels high enough that they will have to use alternative fuels.”
He went on to explain the pros and cons of the various fuel options including LNG (which he says is only a transition fuel at best), hydrogen, ammonia, methanol and synthetic diesel.
READ MORE: Bibby to build world’s first zero-emission support vessel
READ MORE: Award ‘vindicates Merseyside firm’s sustainability drive’
Safety is a massive issue with all these alternatives, explained Dr Beard. All are flammable to varying degrees and ammonia is highly toxic. He raised the nightmare scenario of an ammonia leak on or near a cruise ship.
Safety isn’t just an issue for crew and passengers but also for ports when vessels are docked. Many local fire services are not equipped to deal with the types of fires that could occur.
“My view is that we use bunker vessels (small tankers that refuel ships) a lot more,” he added. “What that allows us to do is get the quantities of fuel that we need. That allows us to store it somewhere safely and refuel vessels at sea.”
In conclusion, Dr Beard observed that the road to decarbonisation was strewn with multiple variables, economics being a key one. Subsidies are essential but he also insists Governments have to hit shipping companies and ports “with a club” and force them to change via taxation.
“There is not enough green fuel and there is not enough green power full stop. It is a struggle and the message is to electrify wherever you can,” he said.
“We have come a long way and with the uptake of a lot of these fuels now all the flag states are talking about it but we need to remove competition between them. One of my biggest fears shore side is planning. Everyone wants it, they just don’t want it next to them.
“But we need to act. We can do it and we have to do it. A tonne of carbon saved today is worth a damn sight more than a tonne of carbon saved tomorrow – so we need to start doing this now.”
In summarising Dr Beard’s insights, it’s clear that the economic drivers are just as pivotal as the technical solutions in advancing the maritime energy transition.
He underscores that the high costs of alternative fuels and the need for extensive port infrastructure investment are key obstacles that demand government intervention.
According to Dr Beard, taxation and subsidies are crucial mechanisms to incentivise a shift towards green fuels and infrastructure development. While safety, availability, and fuel compatibility remain significant challenges.
He believes that proactive policy measures and financial commitments are necessary to make alternative fuels economically viable at scale.
His message is urgent – the shipping industry must act swiftly to begin decarbonising now, as immediate reductions in emissions are increasingly valuable in the race against climate change.