2024-02-05 チャルマース工科大学
◆研究者はアンモニアの使用に伴うリスク評価が不足していると指摘しています。再生可能エネルギーキャリアの技術的実行可能性、環境影響、経済的実現可能性を評価する研究では、電池を含む4種類のエネルギーキャリアと3種類の電気燃料が検討されました。結果としてアンモニアやメタノールは最も低コストであるが、環境影響が大きく、アンモニアの使用は特に深海貨物船に制限される可能性があると警告しています。
＜関連情報＞
- https://news.cision.com/chalmers/r/ammonia-attracts-the-shipping-industry–but-researchers-warn-of-its-risks,c3921155
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261923011376?via%3Dihub
化石燃料を使用しない場合の技術経済的実現可能性と環境性能に、船舶運航のばらつきがどのように影響するか？ライフサイクル研究 How do variations in ship operation impact the techno-economic feasibility and environmental performance of fossil-free fuels? A life cycle study
Fayas Malik Kanchiralla, Selma Brynolf, Tobias Olsson, Joanne Ellis, Julia Hansson, Maria Grahn
Applied Energy Available online:19 August 2023
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121773
Highlights
•How vessel operation will affect the environmental impacts of different decarbonization options is presented.
•Technical feasibility of selected fuel and propulsion systems for three different types of vessels are investigated.
•Economic tradeoffs for selecting different decarbonization pathways considering climate impact reduction potential, and.
•LCA and LCC results are performed for two different electricity scenarios.
Abstract
Identifying an obvious non-fossil fuel solution for all ship types for meeting the greenhouse gas reduction target in shipping is challenging. This paper evaluates the technical viability, environmental impacts, and economic feasibility of different energy carriers for three case vessels of different ship types: a RoPax ferry, a tanker, and a service vessel. The energy carriers examined include battery-electric and three electro-fuels (hydrogen, methanol, and ammonia) which are used in combination with engines and fuel cells. Three methods are used: preliminary ship design feasibility, life cycle assessment, and life cycle costing. The results showed that battery-electric and compressed hydrogen options are not viable for some ships due to insufficient available onboard space for energy storage needed for the vessel’s operational range. The global warming reduction potential is shown to depend on the ship type. This reduction potential of assessed options changes also with changes in the carbon intensity of the electricity mix. Life cycle costing results shows that the use of ammonia and methanol in engines has the lowest life cycle cost for all studied case vessels. However, the higher energy conversion losses of these systems make them more vulnerable to fluctuations in the price of electricity. Also, these options have higher environmental impacts on categories like human toxicity, resource use (minerals and metals), and water use. Fuel cells and batteries are not as cost-competitive for the case vessels because of their higher upfront costs and shorter lifetimes. However, these alternatives are less expensive than alternatives with internal combustion engines in the case of higher utilization rates and fuel costs.
Graphical abstract
