Recent research suggests that LNG ships could be more harmful to the environment than HFO.

Despite the flurry of orders, increasing research has shown that switching to LNG-powered vessels might be worse than doing nothing about reducing emissions.

The news has sparked a fierce debate that is likely to dominate the IMOs’ June MEPC78.

57% of Q1’s newbuild orders were for LNG-powered vessels, but the fuel seems to be in decline.

Countries propose that GWP20, the indicator of greenhouse emissions global heating potential over a period of 20 years, be considered.

This distinction is crucial because newly emitted atmospheric Methane (CH) can be emitted.₄) from LNG begins to degrade into CO₂It has induced 86 times more global warming than the equivalent volume CO over the past 20 years.₂.

A study of CO by the International Council on Clean Transportation, submitted as evidence by Solomon Islands and Pacific Environment and Inuit Circumpolar Council.₂ LNG is a better choice than HFO because it reduces emissions by up to 0.5 grams per gram.

However, its CO2 emissions profile is not favorable._2, “equivalent” greenhouse gases over a 20-year period (CO₂e20), this gain seems to be completely lost due an increase in CO₂In switching from HFO propulsion to LNG propulsion, e per gram can be as high as 3.771 grams. (CO)₂e100), this increases amounts to as much at 1.229 grams per kilogram of fuel burned.

LNGs well to-tank CO₂According to the study, HFO has slightly higher emissions than HFO and its well-to tank methane emissions are nearly quadrupled. These figures could be explained by the fact that some of these emissions are attributed to land-based LNG infrastructure.

Comparing these three metrics [CO2, CO₂e20 and CO₂e100]One can see that focusing on CO is not the best thing._2,The study authors concluded that ignoring other climate pollutants can lead to a significant underestimation of climate pollution from maritime transport.

We recommend that policymakers not only consider CO₂e100, CO, and CO₂e20 for policies aligned with Paris Agreement.

ICCT

Sea-LNG, an interest group, recently decried the claims of LNG opponents. They cited Sphera’s results. It compares 0.5% sulphur fuel oils (VLSFO) to LNG on a well-to–wake basis and finds a 23% drop in CO₂e/kWh of engine output (the study doesn’t appear to take CO into account).₂e20 into account).

Sphera’s study does measure well–to-tank emissions. It finds that HFO emits 14.1g CO2e/MJ; VLSFO0.5 emits 14g CO2e/MJ; MGO0.1 emits 14.9g; LNG emits 17.7g.

Sea-LNG chairman Peter Keller said methane slip represented an overused argument for those wishing to justify inaction and added that by 2030, he believes, it will have been virtually eliminated”.

Sea-LNG also pointed out that it may in due course be possible to switch to bio-LNG a close-to-carbon-neutral drop in replacement for LNG, and a recourse for owners already saddled with fleets of LNG-fuelled ships.

Sphera