IMO 2020:

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Links to various IMO2020 fuels

 

Maersk and Koole Terminals to produce 0.5% sulphur marine fuel in Rotterdam

 

 

https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2019/09/05/maersk-koole-terminals-produce-sulphur-marine-fuel-rotterdam

 

 

Neste introduces a new IMO2020-compliant low-sulphur marine fuel

 

 

https://www.neste.com/releases-and-news/transportation/neste-introduces-new-imo2020-compliant-low-sulphur-marine-fuel

 

 

https://www.chevronmarineproducts.com/en_UK/IMO-2020-Solutions1.html

 

 

https://www.dnvgl.com/training/low-sulphur-fuel-compliance-with-2020-requirements-11506

 

 

 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

IMO 2020: Frequently asked questions

What is IMO 2020?

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has ruled that from 1 January 2020, marine sector emissions in international waters be slashed. The marine sector will have to reduce sulphur emissions by over 80% by switching to lower sulphur fuels. The current maximum fuel oil sulphur limit of 3.5 weight percent (wt%) will fall to 0.5 wt%. IMO 2020 regulations will see the largest reduction in the sulphur content of a transportation fuel undertaken at one time.

 

https://www.woodmac.com/nslp/imo-2020-guide/

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Low-sulphur fuel oil prices at 16-year high

 

 

https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/1934610-lowsulphur-fuel-oil-prices-at-16year-high

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

The Journey to 2020

 

https://www.exxonmobil.com/en/marine/marine-industry/journey-to-2020

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Dirty shipping fuel margins plunge as cleaner fuel rules loom

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fueloil-imo-graphic/dirty-shipping-fuel-margins-plunge-as-cleaner-fuel-rules-loom-idUSKCN1V610L

 

 

 

New low-sulphur marine fuel trade begins in Singapore

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-bunker-imo/new-low-sulphur-marine-fuel-trade-begins-in-singapore-idUSKBN1WA15P

 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Ultra-Low Sulphur Fuel Oil

 

https://www.shell.com/business-customers/marine/fuel/ulsfo.html

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Sulphur 2020 – cutting sulphur oxide emissions

 

http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Sulphur-2020.aspx

 

 

 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

China Marine Bunker starts supplying low-sulphur fuel oil to Chinese ports

 

ZHOUSHAN, China Oct 18 (Reuters) -

* China Marine Bunker Co, a unit of PetroChina , says it has started to supply bonded low-sulphur fuel oil (LSFO) to all major Chinese ports before tighter fuel standards come into force in 2020

* General Manager Sun Hougang said at an industry conference in Zhoushan that more than 10,000 tonnes of LSFO had already entered the company’s bonded warehouses in China

 

* International Maritime Organisation (IMO) rules ban ships from using fuel oil with a sulphur content above 0.5% from Jan. 1, 2020, compared with 3.5% now, unless equipped with exhaust “scrubbers” to clean up sulphur emissions.

* Demand for LSFO is expected to increase from mid-late November ahead of the IMO 2020 deadline, Sun said, adding that bunker fuel suppliers’ financing needs were set to rise by 20-30% after IMO 2020 due to higher costs

 

* Eight of PetroChina’s refineries and 10 of rival Sinopec’s are capable of producing LSFO, Sun said; Seven plants have so far carried out trial output, producing 37,000 tonnes, he added.

* LSFO produced by PetroChina will mostly be sold via China Marine Bunker after IMO 2020, Sun said (Reporting by Muyu Xu and Tom Daly; Editing by Mark Potter)

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Shippers Change Course As Fuel Rules Target Sulphur Emissions

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/woodmackenzie/2019/10/18/shippers-change-course-as-fuel-rules-target-sulphur-emissions/#c3f200314580

 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Singapore's APEX to launch low-sulfur fuel oil contract ahead of new shipping rules

 

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore-based Asia Pacific Exchange (APEX) will launch a low-sulfur fuel oil (LSFO) futures contract on Friday aimed at helping shipping and energy firms manage price fluctuations as stricter global marine fuel rules kick in from 2020, it said.

New International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations cutting the allowed sulfur content in shipping fuel to 0.5% from 3.5% in a bid to combat air pollution will apply from Jan. 1 next year.

The new contract aims to help the energy and shipping sectors to hedge risk in the relatively new market for 0.5% LSFO delivered marine fuels, or bunkers, the spokesman said.

“Risk management demand for delivered bunker LSFO prices has become more significant due to factors such as the uncertainty in LSFO specifications, and the disconnection between cargo and delivered prices,” said the spokesman.

The cash-settled, U.S. dollar-denominated LSFO futures contract will be for 10 tonnes of fuel oil, and will use the Argus Bunker Index (ABI) Singapore LSFO 0.5% as the settlement price, according to APEX and Argus company websites.

 

The Argus LSFO 0.5% index represents the price of bunker fuel delivered within 4-12 days of the trade date, for volumes between 500-3,000 tonnes, with viscosity of less than 380-centistoke (cst) and sulfur content below 0.5%.

The LSFO futures contract is APEX’s second fuel oil contract and follows the 380-cst high-sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) contracts it launched in April.

 

“Since the launch of the HSFO contract, we have been closely monitoring the demand and pain points of the market, and will continuously design new products and improve our services based on market’s feedback,” the spokesman said.

The new contract is expected to help users cope with the change in marine fuel regulation, he added.

Since its launch the APEX 380-cst HSFO contract has seen average daily trading volume of some 23,000 lots, representing 230,000 tonnes of fuel oil, and an average daily open interest of around 3,600 lots, or 36,000 tonnes, the spokesman said.

 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

 

Stay compliant and competitive beyond 2020

 

 

https://www.man-es.com/services/service-solutions/2020

[ronwagn + 6,290]

24 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

I should have mentioned the use of hydrogen in low sulphur fuels.

Here is a link to the article

 

Asia’s demand for low-sulphur fuel drives hydrogen gas consumption - Linde

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/27/reuters-america-asias-demand-for-low-sulphur-fuel-drives-hydrogen-gas-consumption--linde.html

I am no chemist but it seems that natural gas would be an easier and lower priced byproduct to produce. Hydrogen is great, but more costly to produce based on what I have read.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

I know a little about switching to LNG, as I was a staunch supporter of T. Boone Pickens' plan to convert the nation's 18-wheelers to natural gas. It takes longer to fill up with NG than with a liquid fuel. The LNG tanks are heavy. So heavy, in fact, that in a normal-sized land-based rig, they displace between 500 and 3,000 pounds of profit-producing payload, depending on range. Switching from conventional fuels (diesel) to NG requires a very expensive undertaking for a semi-tractor trailer rig--about $50,000--and I can only imagine what it would take to convert a large freighter vessel. Hydrogen is even more expensive. There is an ocean-going shipper that had two or three freight-carrying vessels built from scratch in San Diego a few years back. I had completely forgotten about them as I never heard how they did. However, with the world's refineries--especially Chinese ones--already tooled up to produce the LSFO that meets the 0.5% sulfur cap, I think this is going to be the gold standard for the foreseeable future. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

29 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I am no chemist but it seems that natural gas would be an easier and lower priced byproduct to produce. Hydrogen is great, but more costly to produce based on what I have read.

Hydrogenation causes the sulfur to preferentially bond with it, rather than the carbons it is currently canoodling with. You end up with H2S which is easily separated. CH4 does you no good because the 4 available carbon bonds are all occupied with 4 hydrogens, leaving nothing for the sulfur to bond with. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

47 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Hydrogenation causes the sulfur to preferentially bond with it, rather than the carbons it is currently canoodling with. You end up with H2S which is easily separated. CH4 does you no good because the 4 available carbon bonds are all occupied with 4 hydrogens, leaving nothing for the sulfur to bond with. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel

Hydrogen fuel can provide motive power for liquid-propellant rockets, cars, trains, boats and airplanes, portable fuel cell applications or stationary fuel cell applications, which can power an electric motor.^[19] The problems of using hydrogen fuel in cars arise from the fact that hydrogen is difficult to store in either a high pressure tank or a cryogenic tank.^[20]

At a low cost price for hydrogen (€5/kg),^[24] significant fuel savings could be made via such a conversion in Europe or the UK. A lower price would be needed to compete with gasoline in the US, as gasoline is not exposed to high taxes at the pump.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

There is little difference in a natural gas engine. Only the fuel system needs to be changed. LNG does require somewhat more space for the tanks. 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Building-LNG-powered-ships-newest-industry-along-14062299.php

Kawasaki Heavy Industries has obtained approval in principle for its LNG floating power plant equipped with its own gas turbine.

Kawasaki received approval from ship classification organization DNV GL based on its “Gas Power Plant” rules, which were introduced in 2018.

An LNG floating power plant is an integrated system in which LNG fuel tanks, LNG regasification unit, power generation equipment, and switchyard are all outfitted on the hull.

It is towed on the sea or river and then moored at the installation site, where it generates power on the hull that is then supplied to the onshore power grid.

According to the company, demand for this type of power plant is expected to be strong in countries where demand for electricity is rapidly increasing, such as in Southeast Asia, especially on islands or in locations where it is difficult to secure stable power sources, and also in areas with geographical problems such as lack of land for constructing onshore power plants.

With this AiP, following a previous AiP obtained in May of this year for an LNG floating power plant equipped with Kawasaki’s own gas engine, Kawasaki’s lineup now consists of a CCPP model and a gas engine model.

The CCPP model’s gas turbine, heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), steam turbine, LNG fuel tank, and other main components can be manufactured in Kawasaki’s factories.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

19 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Question:

What would happen if the ship owners collectively refused to refit their vessels to burn the lower sulphur fuel?

Douglas, that is pretty much what is now happening.  Only some 4,000 shipowners have installed those scrubber systems, or are intending to, out of some 90,000 freighters out there.  For the rest, the posture of the shipowners is that it is the responsibility of the fuels suppliers to provide a compliant fuel at quayside for bunkering.

I would editorially note that this is a perfectly logical stance to take.  A ship is not a refinery.  requiring the ship to start making adjustments and changes to the nature of the fuel is effectively turning the ship into a floating refinery.  That is not logical. 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said:

Douglas, that is pretty much what is now happening.  Only some 4,000 shipowners have installed those scrubber systems, or are intending to, out of some 90,000 freighters out there.  For the rest, the posture of the shipowners is that it is the responsibility of the fuels suppliers to provide a compliant fuel at quayside for bunkering.

I would editorially note that this is a perfectly logical stance to take.  A ship is not a refinery.  requiring the ship to start making adjustments and changes to the nature of the fuel is effectively turning the ship into a floating refinery.  That is not logical. 

It would be the same as asking car owners to put onboard sulphur scrubbing tech and emissions control systems , car owners buy the fuels produced by the refineries meeting the regional quality and specs  requirements

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

I know a little about switching to LNG, as I was a staunch supporter of T. Boone Pickens' plan to convert the nation's 18-wheelers to natural gas. It takes longer to fill up with NG than with a liquid fuel. The LNG tanks are heavy. So heavy, in fact, that in a normal-sized land-based rig, they displace between 500 and 3,000 pounds of profit-producing payload, depending on range. Switching from conventional fuels (diesel) to NG requires a very expensive undertaking for a semi-tractor trailer rig--about $50,000--and I can only imagine what it would take to convert a large freighter vessel. Hydrogen is even more expensive. There is an ocean-going shipper that had two or three freight-carrying vessels built from scratch in San Diego a few years back. I had completely forgotten about them as I never heard how they did. However, with the world's refineries--especially Chinese ones--already tooled up to produce the LSFO that meets the 0.5% sulfur cap, I think this is going to be the gold standard for the foreseeable future. 

The latest tanks are far lighter than the older ones. They also now have conformable low pressure storage tanks for odd wasted space.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

I see some confusion here. To my knowledge there is NOTHING to be done to start burning low sulfur fuel. However, it is something of a waste to burn Diesel in a ship's engine, which is where the bunker fuel is burned now. If none of you have seen bunker fuel, it is roughly the same consistency as petroleum jelly, only I wouldn't recommend putting it on your skin. Obviously that needs to be heated to flow into an engine. The big diesel engines on ships will run on just about anything you can put into them. Since they burn on average 100 metric tons per day, this is not something you'd like to buy by the gallon like the sweet diesel that goes into a pickup truck. 

Right now in many places there's no such thing as low sulfur bunker fuel, so the next best thing is diesel, which was refined to consumer vehicle quality. Over time they might start making compliant bunker fuel, but there's a lot of ports that would need to get rid of the mega tons of bunker they have on hand. 

As for pure hydrogen? Lose lose lose. Hydrogen has horrific energy density, is a bomb waiting to go off (Hindenburg anyone? ) and costs giga joules of energy to reform (strip hydrogens from the carbons in CH4). Remember, ships are using 100 tons per day, convert that to BTU'S. Figure about 6.5 million BTU'S per metric ton, so 650 million BTU equivalent needed from hydrogen. 

Quote

energy content per gallon:
Hydrogen gas: 6,500 Btu at 3,000 psi
Natural gas: 33,000– 38,000 Btu at 3,000 psi
Gasoline 109,000– 125,000 Btu
Diesel 128,000– 130,000 Btu

Bunker 150,000 Btu 

 

Edited October 20, 2019 by Ward Smith

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

17 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

However, it is something of a waste to burn Diesel in a ship's engine, which is where the bunker fuel is burned now.

I am impressed by how much data that you and others have at the ready when it comes to this issue. On the other hand, I gleaned everything I know from talking with a logistics expert out of Hong Kong over coffee, and of course, from the Barron's article. I'm no "greenie" by conventional definition but I am increasingly amazed by the numbers that are quietly coming out, such as this one from The Guardian:

Low-grade ship bunker fuel (or fuel oil) has up to 2,000 times the sulphur content of diesel fuel used in US and European automobiles.

This is dramatic when coupled with the analysis that the 15 largest freight ships emit as much SO as all 760M autos on earth. When you consider a shipping fleet of between 60-90,000, of all sizes, what is the extrapolation? Even if they're exaggerating in The Guardian and Barron's, this is so much large issue as a global pollutant than ICE autos and trucks that it's not even in the same league!

These may be false figures that I've read. I'm all for making a shipping profit. I realize that this IMO 2020 mandate is going to tack on an additional 5-10% to the cost of consumer goods. But these pollution numbers are just huge. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

I am impressed by how much data that you and others have at the ready when it comes to this issue. On the other hand, I gleaned everything I know from talking with a logistics expert out of Hong Kong over coffee, and of course, from the Barron's article. I'm no "greenie" by conventional definition but I am increasingly amazed by the numbers that are quietly coming out, such as this one from The Guardian:

Low-grade ship bunker fuel (or fuel oil) has up to 2,000 times the sulphur content of diesel fuel used in US and European automobiles.

This is dramatic when coupled with the analysis that the 15 largest freight ships emit as much SO as all 760M autos on earth. When you consider a shipping fleet of between 60-90,000, of all sizes, what is the extrapolation? Even if they're exaggerating in The Guardian and Barron's, this is so much large issue as a global pollutant than ICE autos and trucks that it's not even in the same league!

These may be false figures that I've read. I'm all for making a shipping profit. I realize that this IMO 2020 mandate is going to tack on an additional 5-10% to the cost of consumer goods. But these pollution numbers are just huge. 

https://www.transportpolicy.net/standard/us-fuels-diesel-and-gasoline/

Quote

OVERVIEW

Ultralow sulfur diesel with a maximum of 15 ppm sulfur has been the norm since 2006 for on-road vehicles, 2010 for non-road vehicles, and 2012 for locomotives and marine vessels.

There's a pretty big difference between 15 ppm and 3.5% so those scare numbers seem reasonable. The Marine vessels mentioned here are yachts and other littoral sized boats. Again, they're not burning fuel by the hundred ton or so per day. Figure 90k ships times 100 tons times 360 times 3.5% and that's roughly the sulfur going into the atmosphere, no? The VLCC class probably burn twice that per day. I'm not at all against the MSO

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

On 10/19/2019 at 2:52 PM, ronwagn said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel

Hydrogen fuel can provide motive power for liquid-propellant rockets, cars, trains, boats and airplanes, portable fuel cell applications or stationary fuel cell applications, which can power an electric motor.^[19] The problems of using hydrogen fuel in cars arise from the fact that hydrogen is difficult to store in either a high pressure tank or a cryogenic tank.^[20]

At a low cost price for hydrogen (€5/kg),^[24] significant fuel savings could be made via such a conversion in Europe or the UK. A lower price would be needed to compete with gasoline in the US, as gasoline is not exposed to high taxes at the pump.

This is the simplest way to get hydrogen!!! used in school labs !!!

______________________

New catalyst could generate hydrogen in a commercial device

 

 

Researchers at the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and Stanford University have shown for the first time that a cheap catalyst can split water and generate hydrogen gas for hours on end in the harsh environment of a commercial device.

The electrolyzer technology, which is based on a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM), has potential for large-scale hydrogen production powered by renewable energy, but it has been held back in part by the high cost of the precious metal catalysts, like platinum and iridium, needed to boost the efficiency of the chemical reactions.

This study points the way toward a cheaper solution, the researchers reported in Nature Nanotechnology.

"Hydrogen gas is a massively important industrial chemical for making fuel and fertilizer, among other things," said Thomas Jaramillo, director of the SUNCAT Center for Interface Science and Catalysis, who led the research team. "It's also a clean, high-energy-content molecule that can be used in fuel cells or to store energy generated by variable power sources like solar and wind. But most of the hydrogen produced today is made with fossil fuels, adding to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need a cost-effective way to produce it with clean energy."

From pricey metal to cheap, abundant materials
There's been extensive work over the years to develop alternatives to precious metal catalysts for PEM systems. Many have been shown to work in a laboratory setting, but Jaramillo said that to his knowledge this is the first to demonstrate high performance in a commercial electrolyzer. The device was manufactured by a PEM electrolysis research site and factory in Connecticut for Nel Hydrogen, the world's oldest and biggest manufacturer of electrolyzer equipment.

Electrolysis works much like a battery in reverse: Rather than generating electricity, it uses electrical current to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The reactions that generate hydrogen and oxygen gas take place on different electrodes using different precious metal catalysts.

In this case, the Nel Hydrogen team replaced the platinum catalyst on the hydrogen-generating side with a catalyst consisting of cobalt phosphide nanoparticles deposited on carbon to form a fine black powder, which was produced by the researchers at SLAC and Stanford. Like other catalysts, it brings other chemicals together and encourages them to react.

The cobalt phosphide catalyst operated extremely well for the entire duration of the test, more than 1,700 hours - an indication that it may be hardy enough for everyday use in reactions that can take place at elevated temperatures, pressures and current densities and in extremely acidic conditions over extended lengths of time, said McKenzie Hubert, a graduate student in Jaramillo's group who led the experiments with Laurie King, a SUNCAT research engineer who has since joined the faculty of Manchester Metropolitan University.

"Our group has been studying this catalyst and related materials for a while," Hubert said, "and we took it from a fundamental lab-scale, experimental stage through testing it under industrial operating conditions, where you need to cover a much larger surface area with the catalyst and it has to function under much more challenging conditions."

One of the most important elements of the study was scaling up the production of the cobalt phosphide catalyst while keeping it very uniform - a process that involved synthesizing the starting material at the lab bench, grinding with a mortar and pestle, baking in a furnace and finally turning the fine black powder into an ink that could be sprayed onto sheets of porous carbon paper. The resulting large-format electrodes were loaded into the electrolyzer for the hydrogen production tests.

Producing hydrogen gas at scale
While the electrolyzer development was funded by the Defense Department, which is interested in the oxygen-generating side of electrolysis for use in submarines, Jaramillo said the work also aligns with the goals of DOE's H2@Scale initiative, which brings DOE labs and industry together to advance the affordable production, transport, storage and use of hydrogen for a number of applications, and the fundamental catalyst research was funded by the DOE Office of Science.

Katherine Ayers, vice president for research and development at Nel and a co-author of the paper, said, "Working with Tom gave us an opportunity to see whether these catalysts could be stable for a long time and gave us a chance to see how their performance compared to that of platinum.

"The performance of the cobalt phosphide catalyst needs to get a little bit better, and its synthesis would need to be scaled up," she said. "But I was quite surprised at how stable these materials were. Even though their efficiency in generating hydrogen was lower than platinum's, it was constant. A lot of things would degrade in that environment."

While the platinum catalyst represents only about 8 percent of the total cost of manufacturing hydrogen with PEM, the fact that the market for the precious metal is so volatile, with prices swinging up and down, could hold back development of the technology, Ayers said. Reducing and stabilizing that cost will become increasingly important as other aspects of PEM electrolysis are improved to meet the increasing demand for hydrogen in fuel cells and other applications.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

On 10/19/2019 at 2:52 PM, ronwagn said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel

Hydrogen fuel can provide motive power for liquid-propellant rockets, cars, trains, boats and airplanes, portable fuel cell applications or stationary fuel cell applications, which can power an electric motor.^[19] The problems of using hydrogen fuel in cars arise from the fact that hydrogen is difficult to store in either a high pressure tank or a cryogenic tank.^[20]

At a low cost price for hydrogen (€5/kg),^[24] significant fuel savings could be made via such a conversion in Europe or the UK. A lower price would be needed to compete with gasoline in the US, as gasoline is not exposed to high taxes at the pump.

South Australia wants to be major supplier of certified green hydrogen

 

South Australia is already a world leader in wind, solar and battery storage to the point where excess renewable energy is often shed during peak production periods.

The South Australian Government has released its Hydrogen Action Plan in a bid to use that cheap renewable energy to generate hydrogen, which can be used as fuel or to generate electricity at a later time and place.

South Australian Premier Steven Marshall used his opening address at the International Conference on Hydrogen Safety in Adelaide this morning to launch the plan.

He said while other jurisdictions were looking at non-renewable hydrogen as a steppingstone to renewable hydrogen, South Australia was well placed to move straight to certified renewable hydrogen.

"In doing so, South Australia can be a trusted, long-term trading partner who shares the values of the hydrogen economy," Premier Marshall said.

"We are ready to go on renewable green hydrogen and to develop a clean and safe hydrogen supply chain in South Australia, which gives confidence to consumers and investors.

"Green hydrogen will fast move from being an alternative fuel to being a mainstream zero carbon fuel, becoming increasingly cost competitive with traditional generation."

Four key hydrogen projects are already underway in South Australia, utilising $17 million in government grants and $25 million in loans. They include:

+ An $11.4 million hydrogen park at the Tonsley Innovation District south of Adelaide to build a 1.25MW electrolyser as the first Australian demonstration project of its scale and size. By mid 2020 small quantities of renewable hydrogen will be produced and blended into the local gas distribution network.

+ An $8.7 million facility at the University of South Australia's Mawson Lakes campus incorporating a solar installation, flow batteries, a hydrogen fuel storage cell stack and thermal energy storage to demonstrate the value of hydrogen storage paired with other new storage technologies.

+ H2U is developing a 30MW water electrolysis facility near Port Lincoln using wind and solar to generate up to 18,000 tonnes of green ammonia a year to supply local agriculture and industrial sectors. The plant will also feature two 16 MW open-cycle gas turbines operating 100 per cent on hydrogen at the site to provide electricity generation to the grid during periods of low wind or solar output.

+ Neoen Australia is investigating the introduction of a 50MW hydrogen super hub to produce about 25,000kg of hydrogen a day at its proposed Crystal Brook Energy Park in the Mid North of the South Australia.

One third of South Australian homes have rooftop solar, which, when added to the state's 22 major wind farms and three large scale solar PV producers, often supply more than 100 per cent of the state's daytime demand. The state is also home to the world's biggest lithium-ion battery and has more than 40 further wind and solar projects under construction or in development.

This has sparked a greater focus on energy storage and interconnection with other states.

Premier Marshall said South Australia was on track to reach 90 per cent renewable energy generation in the mid 2020s and become a net renewable energy exporter in the 2030s.

"In this scenario, storage technologies such as hydrogen are extremely attractive to our state and as a large state in area with remote communities, prospective mineral regions and long transport routes, hydrogen is an exciting, flexible fuel for the future," he said.

"We are focused absolutely on making sure that consumers are protected and that the transition is orderly and affordable.

"We've heard loud and clear our traditional trading partners signalling their enormous ambitions for hydrogen and we want to deepen our existing relationships by together demonstrating and growing a hydrogen economy."

South Australia was the first Australian jurisdiction to develop a plan to accelerate a hydrogen economy with the release in 2017 of a Hydrogen Roadmap. Last year, Australia's national science research agency CSIRO released its National Hydrogen Roadmap and several other states have also since released their own plans.

"Since South Australia's strategy was launched there has been considerable momentum here and internationally, now we're ready to take the next steps to accelerate transition from a roadmap to a plan of action," Premier Marshall said.

"We are at ground zero for this transition."

The 2019 International Conference on Hydrogen Safety this week is the first time the event has been hosted in Australia and has attracted hundreds of delegates from 22 nations.

Australia's Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel told the opening session, Australia had a proud history of using hydrogen.

In 2005, using energy from wind turbines, and through the process of electrolysis, the Australian Antarctic Division was able to generate renewable hydrogen in Antarctica and transport it in cylinders using a hydrogen-powered quad bike.

The hydrogen was then used to power the everyday activities of Australia's Antarctic scientists on Mawson Station - fuelling cooking stoves and generating electricity to run heaters, lights and computers.

"What a staggering feat of ingenuity - proving that even in the coldest, darkest, most-hostile continent on Earth, where special materials and construction techniques are often required, hydrogen energy can be safely and effectively harnessed for human benefit," Dr Frankel said.

"Decades of experience and continuing progress in technologies have shown that hydrogen power is reliable and secure.

"I am confident that this record can be maintained as we seek to open new frontiers and expand our energy horizons."

The President of the International Association for Hydrogen Safety (HySafe) Stuart Hawksworth told the conference that for hydrogen to realise it's full potential as an energy solution it needed to be seen as safe.

He said global collaboration on hydrogen safety was needed on an open international stage.

"In just the past two years, the pace at which new hydrogen technologies and hydrogen fuel applications have emerged is indicative of just how important this fuel source can be for the future, including increasing reliance on renewable energy sources," Hawksworth said.

"Clearly, it is also a fuel with enormous clean energy export potential as countries all over the world seek to increase renewables in their total energy mix.

"However, we need to prove up our social licence around hydrogen's safety and all the issues around that."

Geoscience Australia's has also released a report recently showing prospective hydrogen production regions of Australia. This map showed many parts of South Australia as being highly suitable for hydrogen production and export.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Maritime industry seeks solutions to limit pollution

 

Shipowners say they are trying to cut their heavy-polluting industry's impact on the environment by using cleaner energy -- but some have stalled over limiting the speed of ships.

Led by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the industry is considering several options to replace so-called heavy fuel oil that propels over 60,000 vessels, including tankers, used in the global transportation of goods.

Last week, the IOM met in London to discuss options with other industry players.

"The IMO's ambition can only be realised with the development and application of technological innovation and the introduction of alternative fuels, which means low- or zero-carbon fuels should be made available soon," said its secretary general Kitack Lim.

French companies are driving the development of new ships that can run on less-polluting liquefied natural gas, but that does require suitable storage facilities and engines.

The new technology is gaining support from energy majors, such as Royal Dutch Shell.

"Maritime transport is very polluting and yet is the last sector not to have been regulated," Faig Abbasov of Belgian NGO Transport and Environment told AFP.

Maritime transport accounts for 2.3 percent of CO2 emissions, according to Armateurs de France representing shipping companies. This compares with 2.0 percent for air transport, according to the International Civil Aviation Organization.

The IMO has in the meantime decided that from next year sulphur content in heavy fuel oil will be cut to 0.5 percent from 3.5 percent.

This is expected to be achieved by the use of "scrubbers", or exhaust cleaning systems fitted to ships, that reduce the amount of sulphur emitted into the environment.

- Reduce the speed -

Meanwhile, a large section of the French maritime sector recently voted to limit pollution by reducing ships' speed, a move supported by President Emmanuel Macron.

The ecological benefit is exponential: a tanker that lowers its speed from 12 to 11 knots (22.2 to 20.4 kilometres per hour) reduces its fuel consumption by 18 percent.

The reduction reaches 30 percent if it travels at only 10 knots, according to the French Ministry for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition.

"Reducing vessel speed is one of the options on the table, but it's not the only one," said Hiroyuki Yamada, director of the marine division within the IMO.

"This measure is pushed by some shipowners but not by all," he added.

"Our role is to put in place effective measures that can provide more flexibility."

Shipowners are yet to be convinced, however.

"It's first and foremost a question of investment," said Philippe Renaud at CMA CGM Group.

"If we reduce speed, we will need more ships."

And to add "a longer journey increases storage time and results in additional cost for customers", he noted.

The issue of reducing speeds will feature at the 75th session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee between November 11-15.

The French maritime sector is hoping for a possible vote in favour of the measure in 2020, for implementation by 2023.

"The shipping industry is going to change, because we have to address climate change," said Edmund Hughes, head of air pollution and energy efficiency at the IMO insisted last week.

"We have to phase out CO2 emissions as soon as possible," he insisted.

bp-bcp/ved/nla/jh/jj