Yamaha Motor intends to acquire electric marine propulsion manufacturer Torqeedo
DOE awarding $46.5M to 30 projects to enhance EV charging and workforce development

ClassNK issues approval in principle (AiP) for maritime hydrogen fuel cell system developed by YANMAR

ClassNK issued an Approval in Principle (AiP) for a maritime hydrogen fuel cell system developed by YANMAR Power Technology Co., Ltd. (YANMAR PT). (Earlier post.) This is the first AiP certification for a maritime hydrogen fuel cell system developed by a Japanese manufacturer.


Hydrogen fuel cells are gaining attention as a potential means to help reduce GHG emissions from shipping. Meanwhile, due to the unique characteristics of hydrogen, distinct from conventional gas fuels, safety discussions are actively underway at the IMO.

Based on IMO’s interim guidelines and relevant IEC standards, ClassNK has issued the “Guidelines for Fuel Cell Power Systems On Board Ships (Second Edition)”, specifying safety requirements for the design of ships using fuel cell power installations and the systems themselves to promote and expand the utilization of fuel cells in ships.

The maritime hydrogen fuel cell system (300kW) developed by YANMAR PT is designed with key auxiliary components such as gas valve units integrated within the system enclosure, aimed to facilitate easy installation on ships. On top of that, the system allows for parallel connection of multiple units and adjustments to the number of hydrogen fuel cell modules, making it adaptable to various ship power output requirements.

ClassNK carried out a review of the system in line with its guidelines, and examined the result of required tests and risk assessment. Upon confirming it complies with the prescribed requirements, ClassNK issued the AiP.

AiP. At the initial stage of designing or before the specific target ship to be implemented is decided, the design is examined based on the existing regulations such as international conventions and ship classification rules, and an Approval in Principle (AiP) is issued as proof of conformity with requirements.

It also prevents rework of regulatory aspects in the post-process, shortens the examination time at the time of class registration, and can be used as a technical basis for external appeal of the design status.



For shipping I fancy on board methanol reforming, with the waste CO2 stored on board for recycling when the boat gets to port.
It avoids much of the hassle with high pressure tanks etc, and is a lot less nasty than ammonia.


Low sulfur diesel is available in many ports, you can reform that then use it in HTPEM.
I like the idea of storing the carbon dioxide, better yet use bio synthetic fuels.



'better yet use bio synthetic fuels.'

Carbon negative if it is then recycled.


That's the idea either recycle fossil carbon or use biocarbon from ethanol plants wherever you can get it. You can make jet fuel at natural gas processing plants, they just eject the CO2 right in the atmosphere that comes out of the wellhead, might as well make fuel out of it, that eliminates a lot of emissions, you're making the CO2 do some work.



Just so.
DAC is a fake play, not so utilising concentrated streams of CO2.

I really liked another use of otherwise vented gas, where they are to use otherwise vented to the atmosohere oxygen at windfarms producing hydrogen in the Baltic to oxygenate its depleted waters:



I can see capturing CO2 in large ships you have the infrastructure to do that you have the investment, it all works. There's lots of ways that we can reduce emitting methane and CO2 we just don't do it right now and we need to soon.



Does it have to be big boats to contain the CO2 for recyling, or would it work for more modest vehicles?

As a non-engineer, I am wholly reliant on picking others brains! :-0

They are perfectly free to pick mine in recompense, but strangely NASA etc seem to resist the temptation.......



I have dug out our old discussion on the subject here:


Interestingly the initial studies for CO2 storage aboard are using a 1MW system, which would be modest enough for lightish vessels, although that is just a trial and may be uneconomic compared to the 20MW or so they are targetting.

Re-reading the discussion, I note that I was arguing against your characterisation of DAC as an exercise in futily.

I have since come to agree with you! So I can learn, even if I am usually at the back of the class.....

Here is 'Engineering with Rosie''s excellent video on the subject:


As Rosie says, Greenwashing!

The comments to this entry are closed.