Latest blog posts
Rob Palin
Whether you believe you can, or you believe you can’t, you’re probably right!
February 7, 2023
We believe net zero emission solutions are not just possible, but economically the most viable path.
Our approach focuses on efficiency, the use of available free energy and a closed loop emission-free renewable fuel source.
Our major differentiator is our outside industry perspective. We are a diverse team of experts in fluid dynamics, systems integration, logistics and strategy - unified by a sense of duty to reduce humanity's impact on our one and only home.
Marine transport is the backbone of the world economy, moving around 90% of world trade, and it continues to grow.
While shipping is an efficient transport method when considering emission per ton/mile of cargo, the scale of the industry means that the emissions it does produce are vast. They are also some of the most dangerous and polluting emissions of any industry, with Black Carbon, Methane, Sulfur & Nitrogen Oxides being produced at a disproportionately higher rate.
A lot of people worry about the cost of going green on an entire industry scale. We're worried about the cost of continuing business as usual.
“Global marine fuel consumption is estimated to be ~330 millionmetric tons (87 billion gallons) annually”.
Read more here
“60,000 deaths—were due to air pollution from the 70,000 international ships that ply the world’s oceans. That equates to about 160 billion dollars of health damages annually”. Read more here
Note:
Some studies put the attributable death toll & economic impact as much, much higher;
250k annually post emission reductions
400k annually
$193.45 billion in explicit subsidies for oil based fossil fuels (Gasoline, Diesel, LPG, Kerosene, Petroleum) during 2020. Read here.
At minimum, approximately $81 billion per year is spent by the U.S. military protecting global oil supplies Read here.
32.21 billion barrels of oil produced in 2020(81 billion + 193.4 Read here.
(81 billion + 193.45 billion)/32.21 billion = ~$8.52 explicit subsidy + US military spending subsidy per barrel of oil. 1 tonne = 7.44 barrels. 7.44 * $8.52 = $63 explicit subsidy + US military spending subsidy per tonne of oil. 330 million tonnes of oil * $63 subsidy = $20.919 billion total subsidy for oil consumed by shipping industry.
Note: This figure does not include spending by other governments on protecting foreign oil assets, and does not account for the further billions of implicit subsidies received by fossil fuels, see here.
Recent studies puts the socio economic cost of 1 tonne of carbon emissions (or their GHG GWP equivalent) at $185.
Read here.
Fourth IMO GHG Study 2020, bottom up emissions estimates for 2018. Read Here.
Note:This is not the complete list of pollutants produced by shipping, and also represents only the “tank to wake” emissions – some studies have noted that the “well to tank” emissions could represent a further 10% increase in emissions.
Taxpayers finance shipping through direct subsidies and by covering the cost of pollution, such as harm to human health and the known impacts of climate change.
Just these costs alone amount to over $400 billion every year - the years to come will show us the full scale of the economic damage from climate change.
While we've used a figure of 60,000 deaths per year from shipping pollution, some studies have estimated as high as 400,000, while millions more are afflicted with serious health conditions.
“Global marine fuel consumption is estimated to be ~330 millionmetric tons (87 billion gallons) annually”.
Read more here
“60,000 deaths—were due to air pollution from the 70,000 international ships that ply the world’s oceans. That equates to about 160 billion dollars of health damages annually”. Read more here
Some studies put the attributable death toll & economic impact as much, much higher (~250k annually post emission reductions). Read more here
$193.45 billion in explicit subsidies for oil based fossil fuels (Gasoline, Diesel, LPG, Kerosene, Petroleum) during 2020. Read here.
At minimum, approximately $81 billion per year is spent by the U.S. military protecting global oil supplies Read here.
32.21 billion barrels of oil produced in 2020(81 billion + 193.4 Read here.
(81 billion + 193.45 billion)/32.21 billion = ~$8.52 explicit subsidy + US military spending subsidy per barrel of oil. 1 tonne = 7.44 barrels. 7.44 * $8.52 = $63 explicit subsidy + US military spending subsidy per tonne of oil. 330 million tonnes of oil * $63 subsidy = $20.919 billion total subsidy for oil consumed by shipping industry.
Note: This figure does not include spending by other governments on protecting foreign oil assets, and does not account for the further billions of implicit subsidies received by fossil fuels, see here.
Recent studies puts the socio economic cost of 1 tonne of carbon emissions (or their GHG GWP equivalent) at $185. Read here.
Fourth IMO GHG Study 2020, bottom up emissions estimates for 2018. Read Here.
Note:This is not the complete list of pollutants produced by shipping, and also represents only the “tank to wake” emissions – some studies have noted that the “well to tank” emissions could represent a further 10% increase in emissions.
These figures represent the global warming potential of the various emissions over a 20-year period. This is seen as an important metric, since certain emissions can be far more damaging over the short term compared to carbon emissions only. Emission figures are multiplied by the below factors to provide a carbon emission equivalent.
CH4 20 YR GWP = 87 Read Here. IPCC AR5 Table 8.7, with climate-carbon feedbacks, +1 to GWP20 for fossil methane, per footnote in Table 8.7
BLACK CARBON 20 YR GWP = 3200. Read Here
N2O 20 YR GWP = 268. IPCC AR5 Table 8.7, with climate-carbon feedbacks. Read Here.
NOx 20 YR GWP = 30-33. Read Here.
Many emissions are not well understood (see emissions referenced unknown under hidden & economic cost) but likely still have a dramatic impact to climate change and thus a substantial economic burden. The Sulpher Oxides family in particular is thought to have a large impact on the climate, and is also one of the highest emissions from shipping relative to other industries, but since we cannot accurately represent these emissions, they have been emitted from the cost total.
Project Lovelock is our first prototype.
It will harness free environmental energy, consume only green onboard energy and be designed with hyper efficiency in mind.
Learn More
SPAERA comes from the Latin term for a sphere, globe or working model of the universe. In Italian, it also means hope. We feel a tremendous sense of hope and excitement for the future of the world that we are responsible for building.
The IMO has set a reduction target for 2050, but it has also been told by the UN to make its rules more restrictive (as in achieving net-zero by 2050, not just a percentage reduction) - so far it has not acted. While the authority and political make-ups of the two organizations are very different (the IMO has power proportioned by number of ships flagged to the state, whereas the UN is more based on economic strength), it is likely the IMO will have to take further action than they are currently considering, or face other governing bodies circumventing their authority (as we’re already seeing with mandates from the EU). This will force ship owners & operators to divest away from fossil fuels and explore alternatives, like Spaera. However, for the moment the IMO remains tangled up with vested interests and localized politics.
Hydrogen in its elemental form is just too difficult to store. It needs to be at either extreme cold (< -253 C / -423 F), or extreme pressure ( 700 bar / 10,100 PSI), and it's the smallest molecule found in nature, so it finds its way past even the best seals. If hydrogen escapes, it is about 6 times more damaging compared to CO2 in terms of climate change impact (Link)
Absolutely! Whether formally or informally, what we're doing is changing the system, and the system is the product of many people's minds. If we can change people's minds, we can change the system! Follow us on social media, get the word out, and talk to people who may not understand what we're doing or may be skeptical about our approach.
