The carbon footprint of the petrochemical industry can be reduced even more with the use of green shipping technology

The chemical industry is the third highest emitting sector after the iron/steel and cement sectors, and efforts are now being directed on lowering its carbon footprint. The chemical industry was responsible for 18% of all industrial CO2 emissions in 2018, emitting 1.5 gigatonnes. Syngas generated from fossil fuels is a major contributor of this CO2.

When it comes to transport of petrochemical products, the entire cycle of transportation adds more carbon footprints to the petrochemical industry. Owing to this, many shipping firms are not shifting towards ‘Green Shipping’ in order to reduce carbon emissions.

From the construction of a new ship through its eventual decommissioning, environmental concerns must be taken into account at every step. In order to lessen the impact on the maritime industry, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has enacted regulations concerning exhaust emissions, anti-fouling, ballast water, and more. Because of rules and regulations, the industry will become more eco-friendly. A 2020 Sulfur cap on ship emissions was proposed by the International Maritime Organization. The International Maritime Organization has mandated that, by the year 2050, ships cut their total emissions of greenhouse gases by half. The combustion of fossil fuels is a major contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide and other gas concentrations. The carbon footprint of a green ship would be minimal. Any vessel that helps the environment in some way while at sea is referred to as a "green ship." To reduce pollution, save fuel, and improve performance, "green ship" technology uses alternative methods. Key environmental challenges relating to air, land, and water pollution are addressed by Green Marine, a voluntary environmental certification programme for the North American maritime industry. They propose a strategy for maritime businesses to lessen their impact on the environment.

In the words of Morten Bo Christiansen, "we are faced with a real crisis, a real urgency here, and we need to respond." Christiansen oversees carbon reduction efforts at A.P. Moller-Maersk, headquartered in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Naval architect and University of Southampton professor Stephen R. Turnock says ships have typically gotten away with using the "worst pieces," or fuel that no one else wants, because of their large consumption. In addition, he says, "they burnt it out of sight and out of mind," which means they did it in the middle of the ocean, where nobody noticed the pollution for a long time. "Only when a large number of ships are anchored in one place do residents become aware of the full extent of these emissions."

Bringing About Vast Improvements in Air Quality by Reducing Sulfur Oxide Emissions

The International Maritime Organization has mandated a cut in the sulphur content of ship fuel oil as part of an effort to clean up shipping pollution. Low Sulfur Fuel Oil (LSFO), Marine Gas Oil (MGO), Liquid Natural Gas (LNG), and even using the present fuel with scrubbers on the exhaust stacks are just some of the options being considered by the maritime industry as a result.

All marine fuels must have no more than 0.50 percent sulphur, following IMO regulations.

According to the World Health Organization, "once the 2020 sulphur cap is implemented, cleaner marine fuels will reduce ship-related premature mortality and morbidity by 34 and 54%, respectively, representing a 2.6% global reduction in particulate matter 2.5 /PM2.5 cardiovascular and lung cancer deaths and a 3.6% global reduction in childhood asthma."

Examples of such regulations include the 2020 reduction in allowable sulphur content of ship fuel from 3.5 percent to 0.5 percent by weight. In coastal and other designated locations, sulphur restrictions are even lower, at 0.1%. NOx limitations set by the IMO have been more stringent over the past decade, with certain ships being required to emit as little as 2 g of NOx per KW h of energy output depending on the ship's engine size, operating speed, and year of construction.

To comply with the stricter restrictions, many shippers have switched to cleaner, more expensive marine fuels with less sulphur, or they have blended very-low-sulfur fuels with others to obtain the necessary purity. Sometimes, ship owners meet the standards by using less harmful fuels, but only in select coastal areas.

Still, there are transport companies that use traditional fuels and rely on chemical treatments for engine exhaust to get rid of harmful nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides. At the high temperatures seen in marine engines, dinitrogen in the air combines with the fuel to produce nitrogen oxides (NOx). It is common practise to utilise selective catalytic reduction in diesel vehicles to reduce exhaust nitrogen oxides by more than 95%. Adding a reducing agent to the exhaust gas stream, such as an aqueous urea solution, is part of the procedure. On the catalyst's surface, the exhaust species and reducing agent react to form dinitrogen and water.

Exhaust-gas scrubbers are installed on many ships to remove sulphur and other pollutants from engine emissions. These gadgets function by utilising an alkaline cleaning substance to neutralise acidic exhaust fumes. The technology has the potential to bring ship-based SOx emissions down to legally acceptable levels. Scrubbers, however, have been the subject of debate due to the fact that some vessels pollute the ocean by discharging the used cleaning material.

The major stakeholders in the maritime sector agree that completely abandoning traditional HFO in favour of alternative fuels is the best option to further clean up emissions. Industry experts are currently assessing the pros and cons of the many alternative fuels under consideration.

Due to their size and weight, ships are notoriously difficult to electrify, but there is increasing demand from all along the value chain to find alternatives that produce little to no carbon emissions. Governments and businesses are expecting lower carbon solutions from the industry even if the IMO maintains setting non-binding and unambitious targets for carbon. Companies in Germany are starting to include carbon footprint labels on their wares. Now, a BCO in France can opt for "premium green shipping," which involves paying a higher rate per kilometre but reducing carbon emissions throughout the transport process. The world's leading corporations recognise that improving their environmental, social, and governance performance—including cutting down on their carbon footprint—is essential to their continued success. Instead than waiting to be forced into action, some businesses would rather take the initiative themselves.

In many ways, Hydrogen can be a game-changer

The fact that water is the only byproduct of hydrogen combustion lends credence to the idea that hydrogen is a benign fuel. In any case, the eco-friendliness of the fuel depends heavily on its production process. The environmental impact of producing hydrogen was evaluated by Selma Atilhan and Mahmoud M. El-Halwagi of Texas A&M University and colleagues.

There were three groups that categorised hydrogen. Since most hydrogen nowadays (about 95%) is produced by reforming natural gas or other fossil fuels, this coloration makes sense. When carbon emissions are caught, stored, or utilised, the resulting hydrogen generation is blue. Hydrogen produced entirely from renewable feedstocks and powered by renewable energy sources is green.

 As it stands, the annual CO2 equivalence (a figure that takes into account other greenhouse emissions) output from the world's fossil-based hydrogen generation is 830 million metric tonnes. Hydrogen may be produced sustainably through the electrolysis of water utilising renewable energy sources including sun, wind, nuclear, and hydropower. Multiple plants are currently being built that will produce hundreds of metric tonnes of hydrogen per day using these methods.

Researchers at Texas A&M concluded that liquid hydrogen is the best option for drastically reducing carbon emissions, but that the fuel itself must be environmentally friendly.

The study discovered that grey liquid hydrogen is cheap (about a quarter of the price of green hydrogen) and emits nearly no carbon dioxide when burned to power a ship's engines. However, the carbon footprint of grey hydrogen is higher than that of heavy fuel oil during manufacture, at 120-155 g CO2 eq per megajoule of energy contained in the fuel. Depending on the availability of carbon-capture technology and other considerations, the generation of blue liquid H2 can have a smaller carbon footprint (40-90 g CO2 eq/MJ). Green liquid H2 has a minimal carbon footprint, with estimates ranging from 4.6 to 11.7 g CO2 eq/MJ for hydrogen produced using wind and solar energy, respectively. This makes it an attractive transportation fuel.