Abstract
Recent restrictions on marine fuel sulfur content and a heightened regulatory focus on maritime decarbonization are driving the deployment of low-carbon and low-sulfur alternative fuels for maritime transport. In this study, we quantified the life-cycle greenhouse gas and sulfur oxide emissions of several novel marine biofuel candidates and benchmarked the results against the emissions reduction targets set by the International Maritime Organization. A total of 11 biofuel pathways via four conversion processes are considered, including (1) biocrudes derived from hydrothermal liquefaction of wastewater sludge and manure, (2) bio-oils from catalytic fast pyrolysis of woody biomass, (3) diesel via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis of landfill gas, and (4) lignin ethanol oil from reductive catalytic fractionation of poplar. Our analysis reveals that marine biofuels' life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions range from -60 to 56 gCO(2)e MJ(-1), representing a 41-163% reduction compared with conventional low-sulfur fuel oil, thus demonstrating a considerable potential for decarbonizing the maritime sector. Due to the net-negative carbon emissions from their life cycles, all waste-based pathways showed over 100% greenhouse gas reduction potential with respect to low-sulfur fuel oil. However, while most biofuel feedstocks have a naturally occurring low-sulfur content, the waste feedstocks considered here have higher sulfur content, requiring hydrotreating prior to use as a marine fuel. Combining the break-even price estimates from a published techno-economic analysis, which was performed concurrently with this study, the marginal greenhouse gas abatement cost was estimated to range from -$120 to $370 tCO(2)e(-1) across the pathways considered. Lower marginal greenhouse gas abatement costs were associated with waste-based pathways, while higher marginal greenhouse gas abatement costs were associated with the other biomass-based pathways. Except for lignin ethanol oil, all candidates show the potential to be competitive with a carbon credit of $200 tCO(2)e(-1) in 2016 dollars, which is within the range of prices recently received in connection with California's low-carbon fuel standard.