- Maritime shipping, responsible for ~3% of global emissions, is undergoing a necessary transition to meet international climate targets, driven by regulatory, economic, and sustainability pressures.
- While methanol is gaining attention, supply constraints, high costs, and low energy efficiency limit its current viability; biodiesel, HVO, and battery-electric systems emerge as more practical and cost-effective alternatives.
- A hybrid strategy—combining biofuels and electrification—offers the most promising path toward immediate emissions reduction and long-term sustainability for global shipping operations.
The global maritime sector stands at a pivotal moment as it confronts the need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Accounting for roughly 3% of global emissions, shipping faces mounting pressure from international regulators, particularly the IMO’s recent fuel carbon pricing mandate, and corporate sustainability expectations. These forces are reshaping propulsion strategies, with methanol, biodiesel, hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO), and battery-electric systems emerging as the leading contenders for the future, according to Clean Technica.
A Sharp Shift Away from Fossil Fuels
Long-term projections anticipate a substantial departure from heavy fuel oils, with biomass-based fuels and electrification forming the core of shipping’s energy mix by 2100. Regulatory tightening, carbon pricing, and evolving market dynamics are expected to catalyze this shift.
Methanol’s Promise—and Its Problems
Methanol-fueled vessels, especially dual-fuel designs, have seen a surge in popularity. Over 60 such ships are already operational and more than 340 are on order globally, led by major container carriers like Maersk and CMA CGM. These orders reflect a strategic move by shipowners to hedge against future regulatory risks. However, the optimism around methanol is offset by severe limitations in renewable methanol supply and its high cost. Less than 1% of global methanol production is from renewable sources, and prices remain steep—$1,200 to $2,000 per ton. Given methanol’s low energy density (just 45% of VLSFO), these costs translate into even higher operational expenses.
Moreover, the widespread use of fossil-based methanol, which often emits more CO₂ than traditional fuels, undermines the environmental case for methanol. Regulatory loopholes around tank-to-wake versus well-to-wake emissions accounting have further clouded methanol’s credibility as a “green” option.
Infrastructure and Logistics Hurdles
Adoption is further complicated by the limited bunkering infrastructure for methanol. Major ports lack the facilities and safety protocols for storing and delivering this more corrosive fuel. Early adopters like Maersk have had to invest heavily in setting up bespoke methanol supply chains, making widespread deployment economically and logistically unfeasible in the near term.
Ready and Reliable Alternatives
In contrast, biodiesel and HVO—produced from waste biomass and vegetable oils—are immediately viable. These “drop-in” fuels can be used in existing marine engines and fuel systems without modification. They are supported by mature supply chains and are already available at many ports. With prices ranging from $1,000 to $1,500 per ton, they are significantly more affordable and stable than methanol.
As road transport transitions to electric vehicles, a large portion of the current biofuel supply may be redirected to marine applications. The global production of biofuels, led by HVO and biodiesel, currently totals around 100 million tons per year—most of which could soon be available for maritime use.
Electrification
Battery-electric propulsion is another compelling solution, particularly for ferries, coastal vessels, and inland shipping. Battery prices have plummeted in recent years, and electric propulsion offers unmatched efficiency, up to 90%, as well as quieter operation, reduced maintenance, and zero direct emissions. Although battery-electric propulsion is currently unsuitable for long-range ocean voyages due to size and weight limitations, hybrid systems are a promising interim step.
Hybrid Propulsion: The Optimal Path Forward
For ocean-going ships, hybrid propulsion—combining batteries with biodiesel or HVO engines—provides flexibility, efficiency, and reduced emissions. These systems help cover peak power demands, reduce fuel consumption, and align well with evolving environmental regulations. In regions governed by Emissions Control Areas (ECAs), such as Northern Europe, North America, and increasingly Asia, these low-emission technologies are essential to compliance.
The Case Against Ammonia
Despite being considered by some as an alternative marine fuel, ammonia presents serious health and environmental risks. Its toxicity, corrosiveness in marine environments, and danger to human health in the event of leaks or spills make it an impractical and hazardous option. Furthermore, low-carbon ammonia is expensive to produce and cannot be made from biomass, further diminishing its relevance.
Realistic Decarbonization Requires Flexibility
Given current market conditions and technological readiness, methanol-capable ships may end up operating primarily on biodiesel or conventional fuels for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, biodiesel/HVO in combination with battery-electric propulsion offers a scalable, cost-effective, and lower-risk path to decarbonization.
A Hybrid Future
The future of maritime energy will not be dominated by a single technology or fuel but shaped by a pragmatic mix of solutions. Hybrid systems combining biodiesel or HVO with battery-electric propulsion are already proving to be the most immediately viable and economically sensible option. Shipowners who adopt these hybrid strategies today are likely to benefit from reduced emissions, improved regulatory compliance, and stronger long-term positioning as the global shipping industry transitions to a zero-carbon future.
Did you subscribe to our daily Newsletter?
It’s Free Click here to Subscribe!
Source: CleanTechnica
