Definition of zero carbon energy sources

GETTING TO ZERO COALITION

Written for the Getting to Zero Coalition by Dr Tristan Smith, UCL Energy Institute

Decarbonization as a general term refers to the reduction and control of manmade GHG emissions.
For transport, and in particular shipping, this requires the development of a fleet of ships that derive
their energy consumption from zero carbon energy sources, and the development of supply chains
that can deliver those zero carbon energy sources at sufficient volume and in sufficient locations.
The evolution of both the energy system and the shipping system that is needed, and associated
timescales of development, investment, and asset life, means that there are steps that need to be
initiated now, and work carried out throughout this decade. This is important for zero carbon energy
sources to start to play a role in (international deep/sea) shipping from 2030, though the transition
may not be complete for a further two decades.

There is recognition that zero carbon energy sources may not initially be lower cost/price than current
energy sources (oil derived). This work assumes that successful substitution of current fuels by
zero carbon energy sources is dependent on some combination of regulation and business model
development that will both evolve over coming years. The most likely zero carbon energy source is
the one that can be most competitively used in the sector. This driving principle enables the work on
zero carbon energy sources to begin now, in spite of the uncertainty on how regulation and business
models might evolve.

There are a number of potential ways to store energy for use on board ships that could reduce
shipping’s GHG emissions. There are equally numerous ways to collectively refer to these options,
with no one expression fully resolving the complex issues this raises, or entering into common
parlance as the accepted ‘catch all’. The phrase “Zero carbon energy sources” is a compromise and
deserves further explanation.

This section is intended to provide that explanation by clarifying the definition and intent behind
a short phrase (“zero carbon energy sources”) that can summarise the objective that frames the
effort to shortlist and select from options, whilst both remaining technology / solution neutral, and
attempting to avoid negative unintended consequences such as carbon leakage (or the movement of
the emissions problem from ships to other sectors), and wider negative economic impacts.

IMO terminology and phrasing

The IMO spent some time debating exactly this topic (how best to refer to future energy sources)
during the formulation of the IMO’s Initial Strategy for GHG Reduction. The language that was selected
was “Alternative low carbon and zero carbon fuels”. This term has been used as the starting point
by GMF, but with “low” removed (Ref. broader getting to zero literature), and with the term “fuels”
substituted to the more inclusive “energy sources”.

The Coalition’s “zero carbon energy sources” phrase is intentionally broadly aligned to, and
recognisable from the IMO Initial Strategy.

Page 1 of 4
Carbon and GHGs

Carbon has become a common proxy term for GHGs and CO2. CO2 is the dominant GHG for shipping,
which justifies this terminology. (In 2012, CO2 accounted for 98% of shipping’s GHG emission, ref
Third IMO GHG Study.) Other GHG emissions (methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3)) that occur
both upstream in energy production and in ship operation can be important.

Given the preponderance of CO2, this explains the use of the word “carbon”. But given the framing
of the Getting to Zero Coalition around avoidance of dangerous climate change, the work will be
inclusive of all six GHGs covered by the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol so all GHGs are included implicitly,
despite not being referred to explicitly in the phrase “zero carbon energy sources”.

Zero and net-zero

Hydrogen and synthetic non-carbon fuels (ammonia), as well as battery power derived from zero-
carbon electricity based on solar, wind, hydro or nuclear power are some of the options for reducing
GHG emissions, which could be considered (effectively) zero carbon.

Fuels derived from biomass are another option for reducing GHG emissions. In terms of carbon
accountancy, this is more commonly described as “net-zero” because biomass derived energy
is normally still a hydrocarbon that on combustion releases CO2. But because the production of
biomass takes CO2 out of the atmosphere in equivalent quantity to that emitted in combustion, it can
theoretically be considered as net-zero. GHG emitted in upstream processes (e.g. land-use, harvesting,
processing/refining, transport) needs to be accounted for in addition and currently results in a small
net positive carbon emission.

Hydrogen and synthetic non-carbon fuels (ammonia) can also be produced using fossil fuels
from which emissions are captured and stored and not ever released to the atmosphere (e.g. when
combustion of a fossil fuel is used with CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage)), which could make the
fuel net zero if the capture and storage is sufficiently effective.

A variant of CCS is CCU (Carbon Capture and Use). This involves, for example, the capture of CO2
from the combustion of carbon-based fuels (e.g. in a land-based power station), and the use of
the CO2 to produce another fuel (this is one production pathway for methanol and other synthetic
hydrocarbons). This is neither zero carbon nor net zero if it is based on the combustion of fossil fuels,
because all this process does is move the responsibility for a GHG emission from one user/sector to
another.

CCU based on the combustion of biomass on the other hand can theoretically be considered as net-
zero, because the production of biomass takes CO2 out of the atmosphere in equivalent quantity to
that emitted in combustion.

The Coalition’s “zero carbon energy sources” phrase is intended to be inclusive of fuels derived
from zero carbon electricity, biomass and the use of CCS, but not of CCU derived energy sources
based on the combustion of fossil fuels.

Page 2 of 4
Operational, upstream emissions, lifecycle and timescales for deployment

Also known as “well-to-tank” (upstream) and “well-to-wake” lifecycle, this encompasses the fact that
emissions can occur at a number of points in an energy source’s life cycle and not just operational
emissions (e.g. use on a ship).

IMO regulation, and therefore the main mechanism for incentivising change in shipping, is likely to
be constrained to the operational emissions of shipping. However, there are several energy sources
(electricity, hydrogen) that might be zero GHG in use/combustion, but could potentially have
significant upstream GHG emissions (larger than the upstream emissions of current fossil fuels)
depending on their energy sources and manufacturing processes. Therefore, there is a material risk
that addressing shipping GHG emissions will not solve the global problem, just move it to another
sector (energy production). For these reasons, the IMO is likely to further consider the topic and may
publish “guidelines” that could help manage the risk, even if there is no formal policy mechanism to
control the risk.

The nature of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) structure
is that land-based emissions (e.g. in energy production) are already included within the Paris
Agreement, which is closely linked to IMO’s Initial GHG Reduction Strategy. Therefore, working
under this umbrella of temperature goals and obligations to decarbonize, the upstream portion of
any energy source’s GHG emissions is already covered. However, whilst there are obligations and
therefore transitions under way in the wider energy system and global economy, these will take time
and the supply of zero carbon upstream energy at appropriate volume and price may not develop
exactly in step with shipping’s demand for zero carbon energy sources. During the transition,
it may be necessary for non-zero upstream emissions energy sources to be used by shipping,
which is considered legitimate as long as these upstream emissions have the potential for full
decarbonization and are on a pathway to decarbonization alongside shipping.

The Coalition’s “zero carbon energy sources” phrase is inclusive of the full lifecycle emissions
(well-to-wake) needing to be “zero carbon” as the ultimate end objective of ‘getting to zero’, but
with an understanding that there could be a transition period during which upstream emissions
of some energy sources are non-zero. If we rely on any energy source with an initially non-zero
upstream emission, there needs to be evidence that the energy source will become zero at the
latest within the timescales of completing shipping’s decarbonization. Transparency of energy
source carbon emissions will allow for differentiation between energy sources with different
upstream emissions.

Volume and sustainability

Some energy sources (e.g. renewable electricity) have scalability in supply clearly sufficient to meet
global energy needs (in shipping and other sectors). Other energy sources (e.g. biomass derived) have
potential constraints (either biological/physical, or because of sustainability/economic criteria).
Constraints may occur either because there is insufficient supply to meet shipping’s energy demand,
or because of insufficient supply to meet the whole economy’s demand for the energy source. Aviation
is one obvious competitor to shipping for bioenergy, but so is the energy sector which is projected
to be a user of biomass energy sources in order to create negative GHG emissions (when biomass is
used in conjunction with CCS).

Page 3 of 4
The Coalition’s “zero carbon energy sources” phrase does not explicitly include the term
“sustainable”, but the phrase should be understood to exclude non-sustainable energy sources,
including biofuels, brown ammonia and even unsustainable wind and solar.

To enable the transition to a decarbonized shipping sector, the phrase “zero carbon energy
sources” should be understood to cover energy sources and fuels that collectively have the
potential to be scalable for supply of all of shipping’s energy demand in 2050, taking into account
foreseeable constraints of volumes available for shipping in recognition of the likely demand from
other sectors.

Summary table

It is not the intention of this footnote to provide an exhaustive or exclusive list of zero carbon energy
sources. But in order to further illustrate the different sub-headings above, the table below provides
some indications for each of the sub-headings for some potential energy sources.

Hydrogen and Synthetic fossil fuels

Biomass derived
synthetic non-carbon (e-methanol, e-methane,
(biofuel, biogas)
fuels (ammonia) etc.)

Carbon and GHG

CO2 and GHG None CO2 and GHG
operational emissions

Net zero (depending on

Zero or net zero Net zero Zero
source of carbon)

Zero carbon upstream

No No No
available today

Zero carbon upstream

Not likely at volume Not likely at volume Not likely at volume
possible in 2030

Zero carbon upstream

Yes Yes Yes
possible in 2050

Potential for volume/

sustainability Yes No No
constraint

Page 4 of 4