ABS Sustainability Outlook II - Pathways - Low-Res

SETTING THE COURSE TO
LOW CARBON SHIPPING
PATHWAYS TO
SUSTAINABLE SHIPPING
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
EMISSION REGULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Technical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Operational Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Assessment of Impacts on States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Alternative Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
ENERGY MARKET FORECAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Energy Market Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
THE LINK BETWEEN TRADE AND TECHNOLOGY CHOICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
HOW TAXONOMIES LEAD TO FUEL PATHWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Light Gas Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The Heavy Gas and Alcohol Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The Bio/Synthetic Fuels Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
LIGHT GAS PATHWAY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Current State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Medium-Term Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Long-Term Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
HEAVY GAS AND ALCOHOL PATHWAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Medium-Term Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Long-Term Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
BIO/SYNTHETIC FUEL PATHWAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Medium- and Long-Term Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
HYBRID ELECTRIC POWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Operational Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Current Developments and Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
FUELS CELLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Current Development and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
DC SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Current Developments and Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
GLOBAL TRADE AND ITS EFFECT ON DECARBONIZATION OF SHIPPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Cargo Demand and Fleet Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
JUST-IN-TIME AND OPTIMUM SHIP ROUTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
The Case for JIT Shipping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
The Case for OSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
FINDING A COMPANY PATHWAY TOWARDS DECARBONIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
DESIGN STUDY OF FUTURE VESSELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Ship Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Preliminary Assessment of Ammonia Fueled Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
The 2020 Baseline Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
The 2030 Liquid Biofuel Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
The LNG Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
The 2030 Ammonia Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
The 2030 Hydrogen Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
OUTLOOK CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
ABS ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This publication was prepared by a group of technical contributors including: Georgios Plevrakis, Sotirios
Mamalis, Lefteris Karaminas, Evon Li, Domenic Carlucci, Gareth Burton, Modesto Lezama, Nikolaos
Lamprinidis, Dafni Sofiadi, Antony Vourdachas. and Russ Barling in collaboration with Maritime Strategies
International and Herbert Engineering.
WHILE ABS USES REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE AND UPDATE THE INFORMATION IN THIS PUBLICATION, ABS MAKES NO WARRANTIES
OR REPRESENTATIONS AS TO ITS ACCURACY, CURRENCY OR COMPLETENESS. ABS ASSUMES NO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR
OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENT OF THIS PUBLICATION. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EVERYTHING IN THIS PUBLICATION IS PROVIDED
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT WILL ABS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING
SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES OR DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, REVENUE, OR USE, WHETHER BROUGHT IN
CONTRACT OR TORT, ARISING OUT OF OR CONNECTED WITH THIS PUBLICATION OR THE USE OR RELIANCE UPON ANY OF THE CONTENT OR ANY
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN.
INTRODUCTION
I
nternational shipping is facing the critical challenge of sustainability in response to global regulations
for pollution prevention and protection of the aquatic environment. During the past 30 years, the enacted
regulations were shaped in equal parts by responses to environmental incidents, disruptive periods of
technological innovation and changing priorities among marine regulators, all of which were intended to
improve operational efficiency, protect the environment or enhance workplace safety.
Each new regulatory development was preceded by long periods of industry investigation and discussion,
and then followed by extensive efforts from the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Marine
Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC), to achieve the IMO’s strategic objectives through effective
technical regulations. As the governing body on environment-related issues, the MEPC has long sought to
objectively address the environmental concerns raised by its member States and partnering organizations.
In every instance — from the IMO’s mandate of the double hull oil tanker design and onwards — the
conception, formulation and, especially, implementation of regulations would have been greatly aided by a
comprehensive, living document that summarized the challenges and offered current solutions.
As no such document existed, the maritime industry has often experienced long periods of uncertainty as it
sought to interpret the new mandates, and harness technology to comply with those mandates.
As the industry adjusts to the current impact of the IMO’s 2020 sulfur cap — and prepares for the emerging
regulatory changes in 2030 and 2050 — there is consensus that adapting to the new rules and challenges
aimed at lowering its collective carbon footprint will be another period of uncertainty driven by disruptive
environmental legislation, and defined by the innovative solutions which emerge.
1 | SETTING THE COURSE TO LOW CARBON SHIPPING | ABS

INTRODUCTION
While reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG) is a separate challenge from current
efforts to lower shipping’s output of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx), both
put the health of the environment and the livelihood of those who depend on them at risk. For shipping, a
"zero-carbon future" is an aspirational goal, and the associated regulatory pathways will evolve alongside the
changes it inspires in ship design, technology and practices.
Importantly, progress must be achieved strategically and holistically if the maritime industry is to emerge
more efficient, profitable and sustainable than it is today.
In recognition of this goal, ABS has developed the second in a series of "Outlook" documents — the first
was published in June 2019 — to reference available carbon-reduction strategies and inform the shipping
industry as it enters the uncharted waters of the 2030/2050 emissions challenge.
This document examines how the development of global trade will impact global emissions. Furthermore,
it identifies the three main fuel pathways on the course to meeting the IMO’s emission reduction targets
for 2050 and beyond: light gas fuels, heavy gas fuels and bio/synthetic fuels. It also examines the possible
capacity demand and related emissions output trends on a global basis to envision the environments in
which those targets may need to be achieved.
This information is offered solely to help provide industry stakeholders with the information they need
to make informed decisions. The nearest challenges will require them to make choices between new fuels,
energy sources and emissions control systems.
It is offered as a tool to help shipowners understand the complexity of the task ahead and to move forward
effectively as they assess their options for a transition to low-carbon operations, and further to the zero-
carbon future of shipping.
ABS | PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABLE SHIPPING | 2

EMISSIONS REGULATIONS
W
ith the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) marine fuel sulfur cap now in place and air
emissions and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets set for the next 30 years, it is instructive to
recognize how shipping got here, and what is on the near horizon from a regulatory perspective.
At every step, industry stakeholders rallied to offer equal measures of inspiration, investigation, consultation
and resource allocation to achieve the goals of each regulation; it is a formula and level of collective
commitment that will need at the very least to be replicated as shipping sets course for a zero-carbon future.
One recent report1 estimated the industry would need to invest at least $1 trillion to meet the IMO’s
emissions targets for 2050.
From the GHG perspective, the IMO’s most ambitious current target — to reduce shipping’s GHG emissions by
at least 50 percent by 2050, compared to 2008 — was agreed in April 2018 and for the first time brought the
shipping industry broadly into line with the goals of the UN’s Paris Agreement to combat climate change.
However, the IMO’s focus on regulating air-emissions started in 1997 with additions to the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). MARPOL focused on pollutants: nitrogen
oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), volatile organic compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls and heavy metals,
and chlorofluorocarbons.
MARPOL Annex VI, which entered into force in May 2005, limited airborne emissions from ships; the limits
were further tightened in October 2008, revisions that came into force in July 2010. To measure carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions, the IMO commissioned three GHG studies:
3.0%
Worldwide Man-Made CO2 Emissions
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
1996 2007 2012 2030
Figure 1: CO2 emissions from shipping as a percentage of total man-made CO2 emissions.
• In 2000, the first study estimated that, in 1996, international shipping had contributed about 1.8 percent of
man-made CO2 emissions
• In 2009, the second study estimated that, in 2007, emissions from international shipping totaled 880
million tonnes, or about 2.7 percent of man-made CO2 output
• In 2014, the third study estimated that, in 2012, international shipping emissions had dipped to 796 million
tonnes, or about 2.2 percent of man-made CO2 emissions; it also raised the estimates for the second study
to 885 million tonnes, or 2.8 percent
In 2011, MARPOL Annex VI added new requirements for the energy efficiency of ships. The Energy Efficiency
Design Index (EEDI) and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) became mandatory measures
from the start of 2013. These initiatives focused on vessel design, engines and equipment, coupled with
an operational plan, to improve energy efficiency. It was the first step in preparing the industry to adopt
carbon-reduction targets.
Initially, the EEDI required new ships to improve their energy efficiency by 10 percent starting in 2015, by 20
percent starting 2020, and by 30 percent from 2025. Those requirements have since been strengthened and
their implementation accelerated — to 2022 for specific ship types and deadweight tonnage (dwt) segments.
For example, EEDI Phase III for containerships will now commence on January 1, 2022 with reduction rates
incrementally strengthened up to negative 50 percent below the reference line for the larger size ships and
kept at 30 percent for the smaller deadweight segments.
Required EEDI
General Reduction Factors
Phase 0 Phase 0 (2013-2014): 0%

Phase 1 Phase 1 (2015-2019): 1–10%
Phase 2 Phase 2 (2020-2024): 0–20%
Phase 3 Phase 3 (2025+): 0–30%
EEDI
Reduction Factors At beginning of Phase 1 and at midpoint of Phase 2,

IMO to review status of technology development
and revise EEDI Reference Line parameters
and Reduction Factors (Reg 21.6).
DWT
Figure 2: Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI).
Beyond newbuilds, existing ships are also now being considered for technical and operational CO2-reduction
measures. Discussions are ongoing at the IMO’s Intersessional Working Group on GHGs and at MEPC 75.
Separate from IMO initiatives, in July 2015, Europe introduced the European Union Monitoring, Reporting
and Verification (EU MRV) legislation that required shipowners and operators to monitor, report and
verify CO2 emissions each year for vessels larger than 5,000 GT that call at any port in the EU, covering the
entire European Economic Area (EEA). Data collection has been taking place on a per-voyage basis from the
start of 2018.
The IMO also adopted mandatory data-collection requirements to monitor the industry’s consumption of
fuel oil; records of other data, including proxies for transport work, was required for the same classes of
ships, which account for about 85 percent of CO2 emissions
from international shipping. The data will provide a
IMO Targets foundation for more measures.
1.0
0.9 In April 2018, the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC) adopted the previously mentioned
0.8 strategy to reduce the GHG from ships and the carbon
intensity of international shipping. Initial targets are to
0.7 reduce the average CO2 emissions per "transport work" by at
Carbon Intensity
least 40 percent by 2030 compared to 2008 levels, aiming at

0.6
70 percent by 2050; it also committed "as soon as possible" to
0.5 pursue a 50 percent reduction of all GHGs by 2050.
0.4 The MEPC also approved a roadmap (2017–2023) for

developing a “comprehensive IMO strategy on reduction of
0.3 GHG emissions from ships.”
0.2 The revised strategy is due for adoption in 2023, supported

by data collection from ships starting in 2019 and a fourth
0.1
IMO GHG study. The timeline and roadmap for the strategy
0.0 include short–term, mid–term and long–term measures
to be concluded from 2018–2023, 2023–2030 and beyond
2008 2030 2050
2030, respectively.
Figure 3: IMO targets for carbon intensity.

The initial strategy lists a number of candidate measures which could also be considered to further reduce
emissions and help achieve the targets in the strategy, in particular 40 percent reduction of carbon intensity
from shipping by 2030. Short-term measures could be measures finalized and agreed by the Committee
between 2018 and 2023, although in aiming for early action, priority should be given to develop potential
early measures with a view to achieving further reduction of GHG emissions from international shipping
before 2023.
TECHNICAL APPROACH
Proposals for a technical approach which were discussed included an Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index
(EEXI), which could require ships to meet set energy efficiency requirements after the measure taking effect.
Other technical proposals relate to mandatory power limitation on ships.
OPERATIONAL APPROACH
Operational approaches would include focusing on strengthening the ship energy efficiency management
plan, as required in SEEMP. This include proposals for mandatory carbon intensity reduction targets.
Operational proposals also include measures to optimize speed for the voyage. Proposals to limit ship speed
were also discussed.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON STATES
Proponents of the various proposals were invited to provide further details on the initial impact assessment
of their proposal, with a view to identifying the remaining issues to be further considered, including
whether the proposed measure may generate disproportionately negative impact on some States.
ALTERNATIVE FUELS
With a longer-term perspective, and in order to encourage the uptake of alternative low- and zero-carbon
fuels in the shipping sector, the related Working Group also agreed on the establishment of a dedicated
workstream for the development of life-cycle GHG/carbon intensity guidelines for all relevant types of fuels.
This could include, for example, biofuels, electro-/synthetic fuels such as hydrogen or ammonia, etc.
More than 20 years since the IMO first began efforts to regulate the air emissions from the world’s
commercial fleet, the industry is now officially on an ambitious course to a zero-carbon future.

ENERGY MARKET FORECAST
T
he current global energy landscape is centered on the use of hydrocarbon fuels to meet the energy
demands of a developing world, but new and emerging emissions regulations are expected to drive
significant changes to this landscape.
ABS collaborated with Maritime Strategies International (MSI) to create a global scenario for the future
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from shipping, which takes into account the future variation of fuels used in
vessels, as well as the decarbonization of different industrial sectors on which shipping depends.
Two cases were considered: (i) a base scenario that follows the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) stated
policies, and (ii) an Accelerated Climate Action (ACA) scenario that follows the IEA Sustainable Development
actions. Both cases are informed by projections made or commissioned by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) and have been projected to 2050.
These scenarios consider how the supply and demand for key commodities — such as iron ore, coal, minor
bulks, crude oil, refined products, chemicals, edible oils, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and liquefied natural
gas (LNG) — and containerized goods will drive global trade until 2050. The forecasts incorporate explicit
views on global economic growth, demographics, social factors, and energy intensity.
The following figures present the forecast of future demand for oil, natural gas, and coal, alongside the IEA
projections contained in WEO 2019. The scenarios draw on the Stated Policies and Sustainable Development
cases prepared by the IEA. The data have been indexed to 2025 to simplify the projection of the trends, as
there were some differences in underlying historical data.
In the case of oil and gas, the scenarios are closely aligned with the Stated Policies and Sustainable
Development cases from the IEA. In the case of oil, under the ACA scenario, a rapid reduction in demand
takes place after 2030, with oil consumption falling from 42 BnT to 2.4 BnT by 2050.
For natural gas, the reduction in demand is less severe, since it is seen as a cleaner fuel than coal
and oil, with less CO2 emissions per unit energy, less sulfur, and minimal particulate matter emissions
from combustion.
In the case of coal, global consumption is expected to decline, but its continued use in India and other
emerging markets to generate electricity is expected to offset this decline on a global basis.

Index 2025 = 100
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Base Case ACA Scenario IEA Sustainable Dev IEA Stated Policies
Figure 1: Forecast of global future demand for oil.
Index 2025 = 100
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Figure 2: Forecast of global future demand for natural gas.

Index 2025 = 100
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Figure 3: Forecast of global future demand for coal.

THE LINK BETWEEN TRADE
AND TECHNOLOGY CHOICES
T
he wide range of vessels in the global fleet and their diverse trade routes create unique opportunities
and challenges for shipowners as they set a course to decarbonization.
Both short- and deep-sea vessels can be used for international trade and carry similar types of goods.
However, the markets are distinctly different in terms of ability to adopt new technology, available resources
and the complexity of their regulatory frameworks. These differences and commonalities will greatly
influence the pathways that owners choose to reach the International Maritime Organization's (IMO)
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets for 2030, 2050 and beyond.
Short-sea vessels are primarily used in environmentally sensitive areas, such as the Baltic Sea, inland rivers
or lakes located close to urban areas, where emissions are strictly regulated.
About 60 percent of the European sea trade is handled by short-sea shipping across areas such as the
Mediterranean, the North and Irish Seas, the Baltic and throughout the continental countries served by
rivers. Similar national and regional trade clusters exist in Africa, Asia, North and South America. Also, the
short-sea trades tend to be governed by local and regional regulations, rather than global ones.
Ownership of short-sea vessels tends to be distributed among small- to medium-sized companies that
usually have limited resources to spend on new technology. Therefore, they tend to be supported by
government initiatives that incentivize the adoption of any new technologies designed to benefit the public.
Examples of such initiatives are the European Union’s (EU) Connecting Europe Facility2 and Horizon 20203.
The trade and regulatory landscape of short-sea vessels make them ideal candidates for early adoption of
the new technologies that promote environmental sustainability. Some examples include low- and zero-
carbon fuels such as liquefied natural gas (LNG), methanol and ammonia, as well as hybrid-electric power
generation and propulsion systems.
Fuels such as methanol and ammonia have strong potential to lower the carbon footprint of shipping; but
one of their challenges is their low energy content and the comparatively lower amount of energy they can
store in the tanks of a ship.
Short-sea shipping can accommodate the use of fuels with low energy content — such as methanol or
ammonia — that require more frequent bunkering.
Trade Factors and Technology Adoption

Short Sea • Access to frequent refueling
• Often travel on a fixed route
• May benefit from government subsidies
• Good early adopters of technology
Deep Sea • Purpose-built; designed for a function

• Follow a holistic approach
• High capital cost for new equipment
• Built new or retrofitted

THE LINK BETWEEN TRADE AND TECHNOLOGY CHOICES
Similar challenges arise from the use of batteries in hybrid-electric propulsion systems, which require
frequent recharging when the vessel is periodically operated in full electric mode. From a commercial
perspective, short-sea shipping competes with ground transportation, so new technologies will need to
satisfy the regulatory landscape to keep the sector environmentally and economically competitive.
Deep-sea vessels are used for intercontinental trade and are therefore subject to global regulations. The
trend toward more stringent regional regulations, such as those seen in emissions control areas, may
increase the complexity of maintaining the compliance of deep-sea vessels that tend to operate in
multiple jurisdictions.
Also, from a commercial perspective, the large vessels used for deep-sea shipping tend to be designed
for a single cargo, which is more subject to market fluctuations and supply chain risks. This uncertainty
makes shipowners more cautious about adopting new technologies before they are operationally and
economically proven.
Furthermore, charterers considering further ways to differentiate themselves are increasingly likely to set
stronger requirements for environmental performance and compliance with strict regional regulations.
For these reasons, the technical development of large vessels requires a holistic approach to their design, so
that efficient and sustainable operations can be optimized.
The adoption of low- and zero-carbon fuels for large vessels is more challenging than for smaller
ones. Using fuels with low energy content, such as methanol and ammonia, would require a significant
redesign, not least because their fuel tanks would need to be expanded to store enough energy for longer
deep-sea travel.
With capital expenses for redesigns and retrofits rising, the vessel’s employment prospects would need to
justify this investment.
However, certain types of vessels could be early adopters of alternative fuels, if they carry those fuels as
cargo. Aside from LNG carriers, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) carriers also can utilize their cargo in dual-fuel
engines, while reducing their carbon footprints.
In an effort to harmonize the global fleet with IMO goals and regulations, each vessel type faces a challenge
to optimize the performance of its technical, financial and operational elements.
Short-sea vessels can be early adopters of new fuels and technologies that may compromise their range at
sea, but offer environmental benefits; however, deep-sea vessels will require more holistic approaches to
adopting new fuels and technologies so that they can improve their operational efficiency.
The nature and trade route of each cargo will have a great influence on the fuels and new technologies
adopted by each vessel as they pursue a pathway to a zero-carbon future.

HOW TAXONOMIES
LEAD TO FUEL PATHWAYS
T
he owners of internationally trading ships are facing increasingly complex investment decisions as
they try to identify the optimum course to the low-carbon future mandated by the International
Maritime Organization (IMO).
A number of new technologies are being developed in response to the need to decarbonize, but their
practical viability may have limitations at this point in time. The same holds for some prospective fuels,
even if they have the strongest potential to reduce the carbon footprint of future vessels.
All enabling technologies and fuels will need to be assessed in part on their technological readiness, their
potential for large scale commercialization, and their ability to reduce the carbon footprints of vessels in the
short, medium and long term.
Identifying the optimum specifications of each vessel for different types of applications can be a
challenging task, since the range of available technical solutions is wide.
However, by examining the onboard technologies in whole — engines, as well as fuel containment, storage,
and supply systems — common taxonomies can be identified to simplify the decision-making process.
The available fuel options can be categorized into three pathways that can propel the maritime industry to
2030 and beyond:
(i) The light gas pathway,

(ii) The heavy gas and alcohol pathway, and
(iii) The bio/synthetic fuel pathway
The first two categories include fuels, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG),
which are already commercially used to reduce the carbon footprint of vessels. Practical carbon-neutral and
zero-carbon solutions, however, are still under development.
The selection of the fuel pathway and the associated onboard technologies should be based on two
foundational criteria: the type of vessel and its operating profile in terms of trading route and cargo.
© Wojciech Wrzesien/Shutterstock

HOW TAXONOMIES LEAD TO FUEL PATHWAYS
Figure 1: The three fuel pathways to carbon-neutral and zero-carbon shipping.
THE LIGHT GAS PATHWAY
This category includes fuels comprised of small molecules with low-carbon/hydrogen (C/H) ratio, which helps
to reduce carbon emissions, and in the case of methane (CH4) high energy content. However, they require
cryogenic storage and more demanding fuel delivery systems.
Such fuels include LNG, bio-LNG, and synthetic natural gas (SNG) or renewable natural gas (RNG), which can be
produced from biomass and/or by using renewable energy. The production of the synthetic or renewable fuels
from biomass is currently limited in scale and will have to be increased before they can be considered as viable
commercial solutions.
LNG Bio-/Electro- Hydrogen

Methane
LNG is a relatively mature low-carbon fuel, comprised primarily of methane. Its C/H ratio offers a reduction in
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of up to 21 percent compared to baseline heavy fuel oils4. This value does not
include carbon release from methane slip, which may be an issue in two-stroke or four-stroke engines that
operate on LNG in the Otto cycle.
Minimizing methane slip is critical to the commercial adoption of these renewable fuels. The industry is
currently developing in-cylinder emissions control strategies, which could be combined with aftertreatment
systems. By minimizing methane slip, fuels such as bio-LNG and SNG/RNG can offer carbon-neutral propulsion.

The two-stroke and four-stroke engine manufacturers already offer solutions for minimizing methane slip
from combustion, using high-pressure gas injection in the cylinder. These can be combined with methane
oxidation catalysts and other aftertreatment systems used to treat the exhaust gas to further reduce the
methane emissions and minimize the carbon output of using LNG.
As a low-carbon fuel, LNG can be combined with new technologies and/or operational measures to meet the
2030 emissions-reduction goals, and it can contribute to further reductions in future, if blended with bio-
LNG or SNG/RNG. If the latter can be commercialized and made available at large scale in the medium term,
the carbon footprint from using LNG would be reduced in proportion to the amount of renewable fuel used
in the blend.
Given the carbon neutral promise of bio-LNG and SNG/RNG, significant efforts are currently being made to
explore these solutions for commercial use.
At the end of the light gas spectrum, hydrogen may be a solution for future zero-carbon marine vessels.
It offers the highest energy content per mass among all candidate fuels, high diffusivity, and high flame
speed. However, it also requires cryogenic storage and dedicated fuel supply systems for containment.
Hydrogen as a fuel has been demonstrated in internal combustion engines, gas turbines, and fuel
cells, all of which will play a role in marine power generation and propulsion systems. Nevertheless,
significant technical advances are needed before hydrogen can be considered a viable, large scale,
commercial fuel option.
THE HEAVY GAS AND ALCOHOL PATHWAY
This category includes fuels comprised of larger molecules than the light gas group. As such, they have
higher C/H ratios — therefore, lower carbon-reduction potential — and lower energy content. Their fuel
storage and supply requirements are also less demanding.
LPG, MeOH Bio-/Electro- Ammonia

Fuels
These fuels include LPG, methanol, ethanol and ammonia. The alcohols tend to have lower energy
content and the presence of oxygen in the fuel can create issues pertaining to chemical compatibility in
fuel-supply systems.
When used as the primary fuel, methanol can reduce CO2 emissions by around 10 percent5. However,
methanol has the potential to be a carbon-neutral fuel in the future, if it is produced renewably as bio-
methanol or electro-methanol.
The lower energy content of some of these fuels (e.g. methanol) limits the amount of fuel energy that can be
stored on board a ship; thus, they only may be suited to the types of vessels, trades and routes that allow for
frequent refueling.
LPG has higher energy content than the alcohols and may be more conducive to use in modern dual-fuel
engines, but it has not been as widely adopted as LNG due to its lower potential to lower emissions, and its
different safety challenges.
However, methanol and LPG are currently thought of as mature fuels by engine manufacturers, which have
marketed engine platforms able to use them. Therefore, they can be used to meet the carbon-reduction goals
of 2030 and can pave the way to carbon-neutral propulsion, if they are produced renewably in the future.

At the end of the heavy gas or alcohol spectrum, lies ammonia, which can be a zero-carbon fuel if produced
renewably. Despite its toxicity and more stringent handling requirements, ammonia engines are in the
design process.
Recently, designs for ammonia-fueled feeder ships also have been unveiled by consortia that variously
include designers, class and shipyards. However, for ammonia to become a commercially viable long-term
fuel option, comprehensive supply-side infrastructure would need to be built and new, stringent safety
regulations designed and implemented.
THE BIO/SYNTHETIC PATHWAY
This category includes fuels that are produced from biomass, including plants, waste oils and agricultural
waste. Catalytic processing and upgrading of biomass can yield liquid fuels with physical and chemical
properties comparable to diesel oil; this is desirable from a design standpoint because they can be used as
drop-in biofuels with minimal or no changes to marine engines and their fuel delivery systems.
Bio-/Renewable Gas-to-Liquid 2nd and 3rd

Diesel Fuels generation biodiesel
Currently, the most widely used component is fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) or biodiesel, which is described
in the latest ISO (8217/2017) specifications for marine fuel blends and is being offered by major oil companies.
The standard allows for seven percent biodiesel in the fuel blend, but some shipowners are testing richer
blends, from 20 to 100 percent. FAME is a first generation biofuel and faces challenges associated with its
poor oxidative stability, and its potential to degrade over time.
Hydro-treated vegetable oil (HVO) is a second generation biofuel, which is not produced from food crops. It
is often referred to as renewable diesel and produced using modern hydro-treating processes, which yield
high-quality fuels with better stability than FAME biodiesel.
HVO has similar physical and chemical properties to marine gas oil (MGO), making it fully compatible with
existing engines and fuel-delivery systems. Renewable diesel also can be produced from biomass gasification,
using the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process. It is often referred to as a gas-to-liquid or biomass-to-liquid fuel.
Renewable diesel fuel is thought to be a promising medium- to long-term solution for shipowners, because it
can offer a significant reduction in carbon output with minimal capital expenditures.
Electro-fuels: Using renewable energy to produce electro-fuels from biomass could reduce the energy
required for their production, and thus reduce their life-cycle carbon footprint. This technique can be
applied to any of the three fuel pathways to produce bio-LNG, bio-methanol or renewable diesel.
Electro-fuels have the potential to offer carbon-neutral propulsion and can provide solutions in the
medium- to long-term. In addition to fossil and biomass sources, electro-fuels can be produced by carbon
dioxide recovery (CDR), a technique that converts CO2 to syngas, which in turn can be used to produce
bio-LNG or bio-methanol.
CDR has the potential to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and use it for production of electro-fuels, thereby
minimizing the energy needed for fuel production and their potential to reduce global warming.
The following three sections (pages 15-40) present a detailed discussion on each fuel pathway.

LIGHT GAS PATHWAY
T
he light gas group consists of gaseous fuels that contain small molecules and have relatively high
energy content. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a prime example, which is currently in use in a
small but growing part of the global shipping fleet. Currently this pathway is a focal point because
the maritime industry is exploring ways of adopting LNG as a primary fuel. Furthermore, LNG related
technologies have been used extensively on LNG carriers and the industry has gained substantial experience.
This section presents in more detail the related technology and highlights the benefits and challenges
associated with the use of light gases.
CURRENT STATE OF THE ART
LNG is a fossil fuel that offers low emissions compared to heavy fuel oil (HFO), is economically attractive,
and is available at large scale. It is stored in cryogenic conditions, at -162° C on board ships, and its use in
marine vessels is supported by established engine technologies, either dual fuel with the use of micro-pilot
diesel injection in large two-stroke and smaller four-stroke engines, or as single fuel for small- and medium-
sized engines.
LNG contains negligible amounts of sulfur, therefore its combustion does not produce sulfur oxides (SOx). It
also minimizes or eliminates the emission of particulate matter, reduces the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
from combustion compared to HFO due to its lower carbon content, and reduces nitrogen oxides (NOx)
emissions due to the lower cylinder temperatures during combustion. However, the use of LNG may lead to
methane slip, when the fresh fuel-air mixture escapes unburned from the cylinder to the exhaust, or from
incomplete combustion.
The large two-stroke engines currently in production use LNG in combination with HFO/marine gas oil
(MGO) in a dual-fuel combustion process. Two main injection concepts have been used: the low-pressure gas
injection used by WinGD in the X-DF engines; and the high-pressure gas injection used by MAN in the
ME-GI engines (Figure 1). The key difference between them is that the low-pressure system injects gas into
the cylinder early in the compression stroke at pressures of up to 13 bar, while the high-pressure system
injects gas into the cylinder late in the compression stroke at pressures up to 300 bar.
Scavenging Compression Pilot Scavenging Pilot Ignition Main Gas Expansion

Gas + Air Ignition Expansion Compression Air Injection
Diesel injectors LNG injectors
Figure 1: Comparison of low-pressure X-DF (WinGD) vs. high-pressure ME-GI (MAN) gas injection DF engines.
In the low-pressure concept, gas may be injected into the cylinder while the exhaust valve is still open,
which may lead to some fresh fuel-air mixture escaping to the exhaust, contributing to unburned
hydrocarbon emissions and methane slip. The high-pressure system helps to avoid methane slip by
injecting the gas after the exhaust valve closes. In both concepts, however, fuel that is not burned during the
combustion process can result in small amounts of methane slip.

LIGHT GAS PATHWAY
In the low-pressure concept, the injection of the fuel early in the compression stroke creates a nearly
homogeneous background gas-air mixture, which is ignited by a pilot diesel injection late in the compression
stroke. This process leads to relatively low burned gas temperature that results in comparatively low NOx
emissions and can make the engine International Maritime Organization (IMO) Tier III compliant without
the need for aftertreatment.
On the other hand, in the high-pressure concept gas is injected as soon as the pilot fuel combustion begins,
and the gas burns in a diffusion combustion process, which leads to higher burned gas temperatures and a
relatively higher formation of NOx that will require aftertreatment to achieve IMO Tier III compliance.
Low Pressure High Pressure
Gas mode cycle type Otto Diesel
Winterthur Gas and Diesel MAN Energy Solutions

Main engine manufacturers
(WinGD) "X-DF" (MES) "ME-GI"
Through cylinder wall, well

Through cylinder head with
above scavenge ports, with gas
Gas injection separate gas injection valves, once
admission valves, soon after start of
pilot fuel ignites
compression stroke
Gas supply pressure [bar] < 13 300
Liquid pilot fuel [%] 1.0 0.5–1.5
BMEP [bar] 17.3 21–22
Min. load for DF Mode [%] 5 5
Tier III (gas mode) Tier II (oil mode)

IMO NOx Compliance
Tier II (oil mode) Tier II (gas mode)
Methane Number/
Yes No
gas quality sensitive
Methane slip Yes Negligible
Knock/misfire sensitive Yes No
Table 1: Low-pressure X-DF vs. high-pressure ME-GI engine specifications.
From a regulatory perspective, the International Code of Safety for Ships Using Gases or Other Low
Flashpoint Fuels (IGF) defines a high-pressure system as anything that supplies gas at 10 bar or higher.
Therefore, both systems carry that designation, which is mainly for the purposes of piping, pressure-vessel
design, and certification.
MAN Energy Solutions was the first large engine manufacturer to offer an DF engine equipped with a high-
pressure system. The ME-GI family was introduced in 2013 and is an evolution of the “ME” series electronic
engine and the “MC-GI” mechanical dual-fuel (DF) engine of the 1990s, used in a range of marine and
stationary power generation applications. WinGD joined the DF engine market later, but they have achieved
significant market share after building on Wärtsilä’s extensive experience with low-pressure gas supply
systems used in their four-stroke medium-speed DF engines.
Aside from the use of dual-fuel two-stroke engines, a range of dual-fuel four-stroke engines have been
used for applications of marine and stationary power generation. Initially, these engines were introduced
in diesel-electric gas carriers with outputs in the 6-18 MW range, such as the Wärtsilä 50DF and MAN
51/60DF engines.

LIGHT GAS PATHWAY
As the size and type of ships using gas as fuel increased, so did the number of available marine-gas
and DF engines. The established marine engine manufacturers have expanded their ranges and other
manufacturers have entered the market. An example is the Wärtsilä 31 family of engines, which was recently
introduced as a new generation of medium-speed engines, and is offered in diesel, DF and spark gas (SG)
configurations.
In its DF configuration, the engine uses low-pressure gas injection into the intake port, which creates
a nearly homogeneous gas-air mixture in the cylinder, ignited by a diesel injection late in the
compression stroke.
However, in the gas-only configuration, the engine uses a pre-chamber ignition system, which includes a gas
injector in the intake port and a second gas injector directly into the pre-chamber (Figure 2).
Combustion is started in the pre-chamber using a spark discharge. After the pressure rises in the
pre-chamber, the gas forms high-speed jets in the main chamber, which create distributed ignition sites in
the cylinder. This process results in rapid combustion of the fuel-air mixture — avoiding end-gas knock —
and enables the use of high compression ratio for higher thermal efficiency. It also offers high combustion
efficiency, which helps to eliminate methane slip. The second fuel injector placed directly into the
pre-chamber enables the engine to operate at very lean mixtures by injecting additional gas into the
pre-chamber and promoting lean ignition.
© Wärtsilä Corporation
Figure 2: Wärtsilä 31 engine in spark gas (SG, left) and dual fuel (DF, right) versions.
STORAGE
The design and operational requirements for different LNG fuel containment systems are described in the
International Code for the Construction and Equipment and Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC)
and IGF, namely independent tank types A, B and C and dependent membrane tanks (Figure 3). Types A, B
and membrane are low pressure, nominally "atmospheric" tanks, and Type C are designed using pressure
vessel codes. The predominant technologies used for LNG carrier fuel containment in the past 20 years are
the membrane and Type B Moss systems. Type A, B and membrane tanks require a secondary barrier to
contain leaks from the primary barrier. Type A and membrane systems require a full secondary barrier. Type
B require a partial secondary barrier, since they are designed using advanced fatigue analysis tools and a
"leak-before-failure" concept, for which small leaks can be managed with partial cryogenic barrier protection
and inert gas management of the inter-barrier space. Type C tanks are designed using pressure vessel code
criteria and conservative stress limits; therefore they do not require a secondary barrier.

LIGHT GAS PATHWAY
Independent Tanks Integrated Tanks

Type A Type B Type C Membrane Type
Pressure ≤ 700 mbar Pressure ≤ 700 mbar** Pressure > 2000 mbar Pressure ≤ 700 mbar
Full Secondary Barrier Partial Secondary Barrier No Secondary Barrier Full Secondary Barrier
** For Prismatic Tanks
GTT No. 96
Cylindrical
Prismatic Spherical (Moss)
Common for Fully

Refrigerated LPG carriers.
New systems under
GTT Mark III
development for LNG: Bi-lobe/Tri-lobe
- LNT "A"-Box (on order)
- Torgy Prismatic (SPB)
Pressure vessels, based
Based on classical ship on pressure vessel code
structure design rules Based on first-principle
analysis and model tests
KOGAS KC-1
© LNT Marine, GTT, JMU, Moss Maritime, TGE Marine Gas Engineering, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., Marine Chemist Association
Figure 3: Tank options for LNG storage on board.
The easiest way to keep the LNG cooled at ambient pressure is to let part of the cargo boil off. LNG is stored
and transported as a boiling liquid and therefore requires an effective boil-off gas (BOG) management
strategy. Historically, cargo-containment systems were designed with maximum boil-off rates (BOR) of 0.15
percent volume per day, which matched well with the fuel requirements of the relatively low-efficiency
steam turbine plants. The transition to diesel-electric and slow-speed DF engines that started in 2005 and
2014, respectively, has driven designs with improved LNG tank insulation and BOR as low as 0.08 percent to
better match the available BOG to the higher efficiency of the internal combustion engines.
For gas-fueled ships, the amount of BOG available may not be enough to sustain the power demands of
propulsion, so the fuel gas supply systems need to force vaporize the LNG into conditions suitable for the
engines. But the ship will still need to manage the BOG and LNG tank pressures at all times, which can lead
to many potential combinations for fuel supply and BOG management equipment.
The available fuel storage and engine technologies support the use of LNG and other gaseous fuels in the
short and medium term as robust options for power generation and propulsion. While the potential of LNG
to reduce the carbon footprint of shipping in the short term is well understood, it also paves the way for the
blended use of renewable and zero-carbon gaseous fuels.

LIGHT GAS PATHWAY
MAN ME-GI
WinGD X-DF
MAN 51/60DF
MAN 35/44DF
MAN 28/32DF
MAN 23/30DF
Daihatsu DE35DF
Daihatsu DE28DF
Daihatsu DE20DF
Ma K M46DF
Ma K M34DF
MTU 4000
Niigata 28AHX-DF
Hyundai Himsen H35DF
RR Bergen B 36:45
RR Bergen B 35:44
RR Bergen C 26:33
ABC DZD
Mitsubishi GS-MPTK
Wärtsilä 46DF
Wärtsilä 50DF
Wärtsilä 31DF
Wärtsilä 34DF
Wärtsilä 20DF
100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Power, kW
Figure 4: Range of marine dual fuel and gas engines.
MEDIUM-TERM DEVELOPMENT
The carbon footprint of LNG can be reduced or eliminated if it is produced from renewable sources. These
fuels are known as bio-LNG, synthetic natural gas (SNG), renewable natural gas (RNG), or electro-methane, in
which renewable energy is used to produce LNG with the use of electric power.
SNG can be produced from coal or biomass through gasification and methanation, which yield mixtures
that have at least 90 percent methane content by volume with the same physical and chemical properties as
fossil natural gas. The coal-to-SNG conversion produces CO2 in amounts that can be higher than if coal was
burned. Therefore, it is not a viable production pathway, unless the carbon capture and sequestration of CO2
is used in the production process.
On the other hand, biomass can be used to produce SNG/RNG at efficiency of up to 70 percent6, 7. In this
process, production costs can be minimized by maximizing the scale of production and by locating an
anaerobic-digestion plant next to transport sites (such as ports) for the biomass. Present gas storage
infrastructure can allow the plants to continue to produce gas at a full rate even during periods of low
demand, which helps to reduce the cost per unit mass.
SNG/RNG are produced through three main processes:

• Anaerobic digestion of organic (typically moist) material
• Thermal gasification of organic (typically dry) material
• Production through the Sabatier method1, and upgrading
A 2011 analysis conducted by the Gas Technology Institute showed that RNG produced from waste biomass
(e.g. agricultural waste) has the potential to offer up to 2.5 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) annually,
or equal to the natural gas needs for 50 percent of the homes in the United States8. Similar studies have
been performed in the U.K.9, Netherlands10, Sweden and other countries, showing the strong potential of
renewable natural gas to satisfy the energy needs of the future.
Based on these findings, SNG/RNG seems to be well suited to countries with extensive natural gas
distribution networks. The core advantages of SNG/RNG are their compatibility with existing infrastructure,
higher production efficiency than Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuels, and smaller production scale than other,
second generation, biofuel-production systems11.

LIGHT GAS PATHWAY
Property SNG/RNG MGO
Liquid Density (kg/m3) 430-470 825
Lower Heating Value (MJ/kg) 45.3 43.1
Air/Fuel stoichiometry (A/F) 17.2 15.0
Research Octane Number (RON) ~130 N/A
Oxygen content (% vol.) 0 0
Aromatics content (% vol.) 0 ~30
Sulfur content (ppm) 0 < 10
Table 2: Properties of synthetic or renewable natural gas.
Another method of producing RNG is through the use of electric power that is produced renewably. This set
of technologies is often described as "power-to-gas" and the fuels are generally described as "electro-fuels."
Currently, there are three methods for producing gaseous fuels through electric power; all of them use the
electrolysis of water to form hydrogen and oxygen. The methods are described below:
• Hydrogen is fed directly into the natural gas grid or used in transportation, or the industry
• Hydrogen reacts with carbon dioxide to produce methane or SNG/RNG using a methanation reaction,
which can then be used in any natural gas application
• Biogas is used as a low-quality fuel and then upgraded using the available hydrogen
Using natural gas pipelines for hydrogen has been studied by the EU NaturalHy project12 and the U.S.
Department of Energy13. This blending technology is currently used to produce hydrogen-compressed
natural gas (HCNG), a mixture of compressed natural gas and four to nine percent hydrogen by energy.
HCNG can be used as fuel for internal combustion engines and fuel cells, and can directly reduce the carbon
footprint of natural gas in proportion to the blending level. Overall, the use of RNG has the potential to offer
carbon-neutral propulsion for marine vessels, in DF or single-fuel applications, without any modifications to
existing two-stroke or four-stroke engines and their fuel supply systems.
LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT
At the end of the light gas spectrum, hydrogen has the potential to offer zero carbon propulsion for marine
vessels. It can be produced from a variety of sources using conventional or renewable energy and can be
used directly in internal combustion engines or fuel cells.
Hydrogen can be extracted from fossil fuels and biomass, or from water, or from a combination of the
three. Currently, the energy used worldwide for the production of hydrogen is about 275 Mtoe (million
tonnes of oil equivalent), which corresponds to two percent of the world energy demand14. Natural gas is
currently the primary source of hydrogen production (75 percent) and is used widely in the ammonia and
methanol industries.
The second source of hydrogen production is coal (23 percent), which is dominant in China. The remaining
two percent of global hydrogen production is based on oil and electric power (Figure 5).
The strong dependence on natural gas and coal means that the current production of hydrogen is very
carbon intensive, ranging between 10 tCO2/tH2 for natural gas to 19 tCO2/tH2 for coal (Figure 6), but these
emissions can be reduced with the use of carbon capture and sequestration technology.
The extraction of hydrogen from natural gas is accomplished through reformation using three established
methods: (i) steam reforming, which uses water as an oxidant and a source of hydrogen, (ii) partial oxidation,
which uses the oxygen in air in the presence of a catalyst, and (iii) autothermal reforming, which is a
combination of the first two.

LIGHT GAS PATHWAY
In all cases, syngas (CO + H2) is formed and then converted to hydrogen and CO2 through the water-gas
shift reaction. However, to reduce the carbon intensity of hydrogen production, biomass can be used for
production of syngas though gasification, or renewable electric power can be used to electrolyze water.
Once produced, hydrogen can be stored as a gas or liquid, depending on the amount, the storage time, and
the required discharge rate. Its use can range from small-scale mobile and stationary applications to large-
scale intercontinental trade; different applications create different storage needs.
Combined sensitivity
6
CO2 price sensitivity
5
Capex and Opex sensitivity
USD/kgH2
4
Fuel cost sensitivity
3
WACC sensitivity
2
CO2 price
1 Fuel costs
0 Opex
Capex
Electrolysis Electrolysis Natural gas Natural gas Coal without Coal with
grid renewable without with carbon carbon carbon
carbon capture capture capture
capture © IEA (2019) The Future of Hydrogen
Figure 5: Hydrogen production costs for different technologies in 2030.

(WACC = Weighted Average Cost of Capital) (WACC = Weighted Average Cost of Capital).
With CCUS, 90% capture rate

Hard
coal
Without CCUS
Natural gas
Without CCUS
Renewable or nuclear generation

Electricity
Gas-fired generation
Coal-fired generation
World average electricity mix

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
kgCO2/kgH2 © IEA (2019) The Future of Hydrogen
Figure 6: Carbon intensity of hydrogen production with and without utilizing

Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS).
The heating value of hydrogen is the highest among all candidate marine fuels at 120.2 MJ/kg. However, its
energy density per unit of volume, even when liquefied, is significantly lower than that of distillates.
Compressed hydrogen at 700 bar has only approximately 15 percent the energy density of diesel, thus storing
the same amount of energy requires about seven times larger tanks on board a ship. This means that
compressed or liquefied storage of pure hydrogen may be practical only for small ships that have frequent
access to bunkering stations. The deep-sea fleet will likely need a different fuel as a hydrogen carrier, such
as ammonia, to limit significant loss of cargo space.

LIGHT GAS PATHWAY
Ammonia (discussed in the following section) has higher energy density than hydrogen, which reduces
the need for larger tanks. But its advantages need to be weighed against the energy losses and additional
equipment required for conversion to hydrogen before it is used in the engines or fuel cells14.
Alternatively, ammonia can be used directly as a liquid fuel in engines, rather than as a hydrogen carrier.
Reducing the size of the tanks for hydrogen storage is an active research topic. In addition, hydrogen storage
in solid-state materials, such as metal and chemical hydrides, is in the early stages of development. This
technology can enable higher density of hydrogen to be stored at atmospheric pressure.
The use of hydrogen as a marine fuel is covered within the scope of the IGF Code but, at present, there
are no specific initiatives at the IMO to develop hydrogen-focused requirements. However, this could
favor applying the risk-based approach of the alternative-design process, allowing for greater freedom in
design solutions.
The only existing IMO reference instrument was developed to support the carriage of liquefied hydrogen,
MSC.420 (97)(32); it is applicable to ships subject to the IGC Code. There are pilot projects investigating
the use of hydrogen as a fuel, the deep-sea transport of liquefied hydrogen and liquefied hydrogen bunker-
ship concepts.
Developing the hydrogen economy is seen in energy and transport sectors as a potential long-term objective
that would provide a sustainable and clean future. This would require the production of hydrogen from
clean renewable sources and the commercialization of fuel cells. Fuel supplied directly from hydrogen-fuel
sources (rather than through the reforming of other hydrogen carriers) is the preferred option.
The IMO has been developing requirements for fuel cells and currently plans to release these as
"interim guidelines."
Information on the cost of using liquid hydrogen for international shipping is currently scarce. It is
estimated that the additional cost of bunkering facilities and suggested that liquid hydrogen infrastructure
could be 30 percent more expensive than LNG, but this estimate may be conservative.
The main cost components are the storage and bunker vessels, which need to be scaled based on the
number of ships serviced14. On-site availability of hydrogen would be needed for small ports, given the lower
flows and high cost of dedicated hydrogen pipelines. However, ship and infrastructure costs are a relatively
small fraction of total shipping costs over a 15–20-year lifespan, with the fuel cost being the primary factor14.
8 Reconversion
Distribution
6
USD/kgH2
Transmission
4
Import/export
terminals
2
Conversion
0 Production
Hydrogen Ammonia Hydrogen Liquid Organic Ammonia
Hydrogen Carriers
Domestic Import from Australia
© IEA (2019) The Future of Hydrogen
Figure 7: Cost of delivering hydrogen or ammonia produced by

electrolysis from Australia to Japan in 2030.

LIGHT GAS PATHWAY
Natural gas with CCUS Renewable electricity

8
6
USD/kgH2
Australia Middle East Russia Australia Middle East North Africa

– Japan – Japan – EU – Japan – Japan – EU
Domestic hydrogen Domestic ammonia Imported ammonia Reconversion cost
© IEA (2019) The Future of Hydrogen
Figure 8: Comparison of delivered hydrogen costs for domestically produced

and imported hydrogen for selected trade routes in 2030.
From an economic perspective, deep-sea vessels provide favorable platforms because the cost of the storage
and alternative-power generation systems (e.g. fuel cells) has a comparatively lower impact than fuel costs14.
Storage of liquid hydrogen requires at least five times more volume compared to petroleum-based fuels;
ammonia requires about three times more volume. Therefore, as a long-term solution, zero carbon fuels
would require the redesign of vessels and optimization of operational factors to avoid compromising the
travel distance, refueling needs, or cargo volume.
The long-term adoption of hydrogen as a marine fuel for the deep-sea fleet would require substantial
developments in hydrogen fuel supply and fuel cells. This may be achievable in the 2050 timeline, but there
are also projects looking at using hydrogen as a supplementary/mixed fuel, in conventional diesel and DF
engines to reduce their carbon footprint. This route may stimulate the longer-term use of hydrogen as a
marine fuel and support the combustion of hydrogen in internal combustion engines.
CHALLENGES
The use of LNG as a marine fuel is increasing. The Society for Gas as Marine Fuel (SGMF) expects the number
of gas-fueled ships to triple to about 3,000 units by 2030; in 2018, the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies
found a broad consensus that 20-30 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) (28-40 billion cubic meters) would
be needed for marine fuels by 2030; their projection for the number of ships was broadly in line with
SGMF forecast. This trend provides a pathway to the adoption of renewable gaseous fuels. However, certain
challenges need to be addressed: the regulatory landscape remains incomplete, bunkering infrastructure is
limited, and newbuilding and conversion costs are high.
The industry is transitioning from fuels that are static in nature to fuels that are dynamic. LNG is a
dynamic fuel whose condition changes over time. Change is inherent in the behavior of the fuel and this
needs to be accounted for in the design of supporting infrastructure. Therefore, linking the design of the
vessel to the operational profile is of utmost importance to ensure effective handling during operation in
real-life conditions.
Hydrogen faces a number of challenges that need to be addressed in order to make it a competitive
marine fuel option in the long term. The costs of its transport and distribution can be three times as high
as its production. For long distance transport, hydrogen needs to be liquefied or transported as ammonia
or in liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHC). Ammonia and LOHC are cheaper to ship but the costs of
conversion before export and reconversion back to hydrogen before consumption are significant14.

LIGHT GAS PATHWAY
As a light gas and small molecule, hydrogen requires special equipment and procedures to handle it. It
can diffuse into some materials, including some types of iron and steel pipes, and increase their chance
of failure. It can also leak through seals and fittings more easily than natural gas14. The hydrogen flame is
invisible to the naked eye and it is colorless and odorless, making it hard for people to detect fires and leaks.
Hydrogen has been used industrially for decades, therefore protocols for safe handling have been developed.
However, they remain complex compared to those of other fuels. Wide adoption of hydrogen as a marine
fuel will necessitate further development of safety protocols and potentially alleviation of public concerns.
REGULATORY
While the IGF Code for LNG has been in force since 2017, there are aspects, mainly related to its supply, that
have not been addressed on a global level. For example, not all ports have established local regulations
to govern the procedures of LNG bunkering. However, several bodies and industry societies, such as the
International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), SGMF and the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) are working to adopt universal regulations and have issued guides to accommodate
its bunkering.
BUNKERING
Loading LNG into fuel tanks is a different process from loading HFO due to the their different
characteristics. One difference is that LNG is carried as a boiling liquid, which means that temperature
and pressure influence the behavior of the liquid. A second difference is that LNG is a cryogenic liquid at
temperatures of about -162° C (-259° F), and consequently, it is hazardous to personnel and any conventional
steel structures or piping with which it comes in contact.
A third difference is that the vapor from typical petroleum bunkering is not considered to create a
hazardous zone because the flash point is above 60° C (140° F) and is simply vented through flame screens
into the atmosphere. In contrast, LNG vapor can form flammable clouds in confined spaces and is
considered hazardous. This requires special handling of the vapor when bunkering.
LNG storage tanks have been developed so that there is no vapor emitted from the tanks, or the vapor is
returned to the bunkering vessel or terminal. Lines used for bunkering must be drained of LNG at the
completion of bunkering and the remaining gas vapors removed using nitrogen. Any liquid remaining in
the pipes that is trapped between closed valves will boil and expand to fill the available space. If that space
is small, the pressure developed by the expanding vapor can increase to dangerous levels and cause the
pipes to burst or valves to be damaged. Where there is a risk of natural gas pressure buildup, such as LNG
storage tanks and piping systems, relief valves are required to safely allow the excess pressure to be released.
Relief valves need to be properly located so the hazardous zone created by the release of vapor is not near
operational areas on board the vessel. In general, relief valves should tie into a vent mast that directs the gas
away from all critical areas.
LNG is bunkered at cryogenic temperatures so special equipment and procedures are required. Any contact
of personnel with the fuel will cause severe frostbite. Spills of even small amounts of LNG can cause
structural problems, as unprotected steel can be made brittle by the cold liquid, leading to fracture. Stainless
steel drip-trays, breakaway couplings, and special hose connections that seal before uncoupling are often
used to protect from spillage.
Communication between the receiving ship and the bunkering facility is always important, but it is even
more critical when handling LNG. Because of the greater potential for hazards with LNG bunkering, proper
procedures should be followed and understood between the person in-charge on the bunkering facility and
the receiving ship.
Security and safety zones around the bunkering operation need to be set up to reduce the risk of damage
to property and personnel from the LNG hazards; reduce the risk of outside interference with the LNG
bunkering operation; and limit the potential for expansion of a hazardous situation should an LNG or
natural gas release occur.
The global infrastructure for LNG bunkering is currently limited. Ports and shipowners in northern Europe
have led the way; in the U.S., several ports in the Gulf Coast are building capability at a pace driven by the
number of U.S.-owned LNG fueled vessels built by the yards; the Port of Singapore is leading the way in Asia.

HEAVY GAS AND ALCOHOL PATHWAY
T
he heavy gas-alcohol group consists of gaseous and liquid fuels that are comprised of larger molecules
than liquefied natural gas (LNG). Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and methanol are prime examples
and have the potential to contribute significantly to the carbon-reduction targets of 2030 and beyond.
LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS
LPG is primarily a mixture of propane and butane, with small fractions of propylene and other light
hydrocarbon species.
Similar to natural gas, the composition of LPG may vary depending on the source and season. It is produced
as a byproduct of the processing of natural gas, or from oil refining, and can be liquefied at low pressures
and ambient temperature, which is a major advantage for its transportation compared to other gaseous
fuels. It is stored or transported in pressure vessels at around 18 bar or semi-pressurized/refrigerated tanks at
five to eight bar and -10 to -20˚ C.
Currently, more than 60 percent of the global LPG supply is sourced from natural gas processing plants15.
Based on its production pathway, LPG is available at large scale and is economically attractive. These
characteristics have made it the fuel of choice for automotive fleets in several countries around the world.
The combustion of LPG results in lower

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than Chemical composition C3H8/C4H10
diesel fuels due to its lower carbon/ LHV (MJ/kg) 46.1
hydrogen (C/H) ratio (approximately 0.38).
Its C/H is higher than LNG (approximately Energy Density (MJ/L) ~26.5
0.25), so its CO2 emissions are also Heat of Vaporization (kJ/kg) 426
marginally higher.
Autoignition Temperature (° C) 405
However, when considering the life Liquid Density (kg/m ) 3
493
cycle of LPG, its production is less carbon
intensive than that of diesel oil or natural Cetane Number ~0
gas. The life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) Octane Number ~104
emissions of LPG have been reported to
be 17 percent lower than that of heavy Flash point (° C) -104
fuel oil (HFO) or marine gas oil (MGO)15. A/F ratio 15.8
This is comparable to the life-cycle
GHGs generated by the production and Adiabatic Flame Temperature at 1 bar (° C) 1980
combustion of LNG; however, the latter is
affected by the amount of methane slip, Table 1: Properties of LPG.
which can vary depending on the engine
and fuel injection technology.
Table 2 shows the GHG emissions, in kg CO2eq/GJ, for LPG and LNG compared to HFO and MGO, as published
by the World LPG Association (WLPGA). Methane slip of one percent and energy consumption for
liquefaction of seven percent were assumed for the LNG calculations.
HFO MGO LPG LNG (Qatar)
Well-to-tank 9.79 12.69 7.15 9.68
Tank-to-propeller 77.70 74.40 65.50 61.80
Total 87.49 87.09 72.65 71.48
Table 2: GHG emissions (kg CO2eq/GJ) of HFO, MGO, LPG and LNG15.

LPG has lower production emissions than LNG, but they are offset by
higher tank-to-propeller emissions, due to its higher C/H ratio.
Results from large two-stroke engines have shown that the use of LPG
decreases nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions by 10–20 percent compared to
HFO, primarily due to the lower adiabatic flame temperature of LPG15.
However, to comply with Tier III NOx emissions regulations, current two-
stroke LPG engines will need to employ exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
to control rising temperatures during combustion, or selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) systems to treat the exhaust gas. Both solutions are proven
and commercially available.
Results from four-stroke engine testing with LPG indicate they have greater
potential to reduce NOx and may comply with the Tier III regulations
© MAN
without NOx aftertreatment15. The use of LPG virtually eliminates sulfur
emissions and particulate emissions, since the combustion process does not Figure 1: Cylinder cover
form the traditional diesel-spray, fuel-rich pockets in the cylinder. with dual fuel LPG-diesel
injection system on the
The properties of LPG make it a suitable fuel for marine applications. It is MAN ME-LGIP engine.
non-toxic, not harmful to soil or water, and has low handling requirements
as a liquid. Its combustion can provide a short- to medium-term solution
for meeting the IMO emissions regulations. Handling of LPG also reduces the evaporative emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a new requirement in ports around
the globe.
From an economic perspective, the retrofit cost for using LPG is lower than LNG, the fuel cost is lower than
MGO, and it is available from a sustainable supply chain.
The suitability of LPG as a marine fuel has led engine manufacturers to offer new two-stroke engine
platforms. The MAN ME-LGIP dual-fuel (DF) engine was revealed in September of 2018, closely related to the
ME-LGIM engine that was introduced to burn methanol.
The DF injection uses a fuel-booster injection valve that supports the use of a low-pressure fuel supply
system; this significantly reduces the capital cost and increases engine reliability. This system is a key
enabler for utilizing low-flashpoint fuels such as methanol, ethanol, dimethyl ether and LPG. The injection
pressure of LPG is 600–700 bar, and is injected as soon as ignition of a pilot diesel fuel (about three percent
of the total fuel) begins.
High-pressure direct injection helps to minimize fuel slip to the exhaust, lessening the environmental
impact. According to MAN, using LPG in the ME-LGIP engines reduces CO2 emissions by as much as 18
percent, and particulate matter by 90 percent, compared to HFO.
Wärtsilä recently introduced the "31" family of engines, a new generation of four-stroke, medium-speed
engines, available in diesel, DF, and spark-gas (SG) configurations. In the gas-only SG configuration, the
engine uses a pre-chamber spark ignition system, which includes a gas injector in the intake port and a
second gas injector directly into the pre-chamber. The development of gas-only, lean-burn, spark-ignition
technology provides high thermal efficiency, low emissions and a simple adaptation to other heavy gas fuels
such as LPG.
The infrastructure required to supply and transport LPG is growing in parallel with the global demand
for the gas; comparatively more LPG carriers are being built and retrofitted recently. The first two
commercial ME-LGIP engines were installed in two very large gas carriers for EXMAR in late 2019. Built by
Korea’s Hanjin Heavy Industries (HHI) in Korea, Wärtsilä provided their integrated cargo handling and the
fuel supply systems.
MAN also announced the first retrofit orders for the ME-LGIP in September 2018, when it signed a contract
with Oslo-listed BW LPG to convert four MAN B&W 6G60ME-C9.2 HFO-burning engines to 6G60ME-C9.5-LGIP
LPG-propelled DF engines. The order includes options for further retrofits, with work expected to begin
during 202016.

METHANOL Chemical composition CH3OH
LHV (MJ/kg) 20.1

Methanol (CH3OH) is a low-reactivity
alcohol fuel with low C/H ratio, which can Energy Density (MJ/L) 15.7
offer similar CO2 emission reductions as Heat of Vaporization (kJ/kg) 1089
natural gas. It is currently used widely in
the chemical industry and is produced Autoignition Temperature (° C) 450
primarily from natural gas. Liquid Density (kg/m3) 798
The presence of oxygen in the molecule Cetane Number <5

affects its physical and chemical Octane Number 109
properties. Methanol has a comparatively
low energy content, which limits how Flash point (° C) 12
much fuel energy can be stored on board Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio 6.5
a ship. However, methanol has high
enthalpy of vaporization, which creates Adiabatic Flame Temperature at 1 bar (° C) 1980
evaporative cooling effects in the cylinder
after fuel injection. Table 3: Properties of methanol.
The low reactivity of methanol — indicated by its comparatively low cetane number (CN) and high octane
number (ON) — makes it resistant to auto-ignition. Therefore, it requires the presence of an ignition source,
such as a pilot diesel injection in dual-fuel engines, to ignite the fuel-air mixture. The presence of oxygen
also results in lower stoichiometric air/fuel ratio than LNG, which may increase the required mass flow rate
of fuel in an engine of given displaced volume.
Methanol also has lower adiabatic flame temperature than diesel, which can reduce the peak cylinder
temperature and limit NOx formation during combustion.
Methanol is an attractive fuel for marine applications because it is liquid in ambient conditions, which
simplifies storage on board a vessel. It does not contain sulfur and requires limited modifications to the
engine and fuel supply system compared to LNG. Therefore, it presents a more cost-effective solution than
LNG. However, the low energy density makes it less attractive for deep-sea vessels, as bunkering is required
at a two to three times higher frequency compared to current liquid fossil fuels.
The major two-stroke and four-stroke engine manufacturers have introduced engine platforms that can
use methanol and diesel for dual-fuel combustion. The MAN ME-LGI engine was introduced in 2012 to
accommodate low-flashpoint fuels that are injected in liquid form (in contrast to the ME-GI engine where
the natural gas is injected in vapor state). The difference in fuel properties between methanol and LNG
requires some changes to the fuel supply systems between these two engines, but methanol presents fewer
handling constraints than LNG5.
In order to use methanol in a dual-fuel combustion mode, the cylinder covers need to be equipped with
fuel-booster injection valves that can inject liquid methanol into the cylinder at about 600 bar.
In 2019, Marinvest announced that two of its vessels using the ME-LGI engine accumulated more than 50,000
operating hours using methanol and showed a slight improvement in fuel conversion efficiency compared
to baseline diesel operation.
© MAN
Figure 2: MAN ME-LGI engine system overview.

© Alvaro Ardisana/Shutterstock
In 2015, Wärtsilä converted the ro/pax ferry Stena Germanica to operate on methanol and showcased the
retrofit kit required for the conversion. The base engine was modified to add a common rail-methanol
injection system and changing the cylinder head, fuel injectors and fuel pump plungers.
The conversion also added a standalone high-pressure methanol pump, an oil supply unit for the sealing
and control oil to the fuel injectors, and an updated engine management system. The dual-fuel injector
assembly is used to directly inject methanol at 600 bar and pilot diesel at 1300 bar17.
Figure 4: Wärtsilä methanol injector assembly.
MEDIUM-TERM DEVELOPMENT
To meet the GHG reduction targets of 2030 and beyond, marine vessels will need fuels that have a low-
carbon or carbon-neutral life cycle; two examples of these fuels that belong to the heavy gas/alcohol
pathway are bio-LPG and bio-methanol.
Bio-LPG is a byproduct of the biodiesel production process, similar to LPG being a byproduct of oil refining.
During production of biodiesel, the biomass material undergoes some catalytic processing and is then
refined to biodiesel.
A range of waste gases is produced that contain propane or bio-LPG; this byproduct is then purified to make
it identical in composition to conventional LPG.

In 2018, Neste operated the world’s first, large scale, renewable propane production facility in Rotterdam,
Netherlands. The bio-LPG is used across Europe for a range of LPG applications, including transportation to
residential and commercial heating. It is also used as a drop-in biofuel in marine applications.
Bio-LPG can be produced from a variety of feedstocks, such as agricultural waste and residue, wood and
vegetable oils; as such its life-cycle carbon footprint can be very low, and it can offer a solution to the
emissions challenge for marine vessels in the short- to medium-term.
Bio-Methanol: The ability to produce methanol from a variety of feedstock makes it a logistically and
economically attractive commodity and fuel.
The typical feedstock is natural gas, but methanol can also be made from renewable sources such as wood,
municipal solid waste, waste CO2 and sewage waste. When renewable electricity is used for production,
methanol becomes an electro-fuel.
Methods of industrial methanol production include: synthesis gas (syngas) from feedstock; catalytic
conversion to crude methanol; and distillation to pure methanol by water removal.
In addition to fossil and biomass sources, methanol can be produced by carbon dioxide recovery (CDR), a
technique that converts CO2 to syngas and then methanol. CDR has been developed by Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries (MHI) and used by the Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company in Bahrain and the Qatar Fuel
Additives Company in Qatar. The Azerbaijan Methanol Company in Baku and the South Louisiana Methanol
facility also are using CDR for additional methanol production.
To assess the environmental impact of marine fuels, it is critical to consider the emissions from their
production. Figure 4 shows a graphical representation of a life-cycle analysis (LCA) of fuels, which includes
emissions from extraction of the raw material (either fossil or biomass), fuel production, transportation and
storage, bunkering and, finally, from combustion on board the vessel.
Fuel production pathways that are energy and carbon intensive will not be attractive in the future and may
increase the fuel price. Carbon-intensive production methods also may be restricted by new regulations.
Emission to air
Extraction of Fuel production Transportation Bunkering Transportation of

raw material and storage 1 ton cargo 1 km
Raw
materials Raw
Fuel Fuel Fuel
materials (functional
flow)
Well to tank Tank to propeller
System boundaries
Figure 4: Life-cycle analysis of marine fuels from well to propeller17.
The contribution of each fuel to GHG emissions is expressed as the global warming potential (GWP). The
fossil-based fuels have a comparable GWP to HFO. The bio-methanol has considerably lower GWP than HFO,
but not zero, due to the fossil energy used to grow, harvest, process and transport biomass for production.
Using renewable energy for the production of methanol as an electro-fuel has the potential to reduce the
total energy expended for production. Therefore, it would further reduce the GWP of bio-methanol.
In addition to achieving a lower carbon footprint, the liquid state of methanol makes it easy to store, and be
readily available for bunkering. The current infrastructure for methanol distribution was built for its use by
the chemical industry, which ensures adequate availability. But it is thought that several more terminals will
be needed if methanol is to be used in marine vessels.
Figure 5 shows the estimated capacity of methanol storage around the world, which would support its
logistical suitability as a marine fuel for the medium-term.

East Europe and

Baltic Region
44t
Russia
Canada 100t
Northwest
99t
Europe
695t
Black Sea
94t East China
Southern 1025t
U.S. – West Coast
Europe
76t
105t
U.S. – Gulf Coast US - East Coast Korea, Japan,

808t 140t and Taiwan
Middle East South China
Africa - Med 812t
- Med 495t
115t
Latin America – 95t
Pacific Coast
75t
Other
Other Africa Middle East South East Asia
Latin America – 20t 610t and Australasia
Atlantic Coast 1350t
720t
India
405t
© IHS
Figure 5: Estimated methanol storage capacity in thousands of tons.
LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT
At the end of the heavy gas pathway, ammonia seems to be a disruptive, zero-carbon fuel that has the
potential to enter the global market relatively quickly and significantly contribute to meeting the GHG-
reduction target for 2050 set by the IMO.
Ammonia (NH3) is a compound of Chemical composition NH3

nitrogen and hydrogen, and a colorless gas
in ambient conditions with a characteristic Latent heat of vaporization (LHV) (MJ/kg) 18.8
pungent smell. It is a common Energy Density (MJ/L) 12.7
nitrogenous waste, particularly among
aquatic organisms, and is used as fertilizer Heat of Vaporization (kJ/kg) 1371
because it contributes significantly to the Autoignition Temperature (° C) 651
nutritional needs of terrestrial organisms.
It is also used as a building block for Liquid Density (kg/m3) 600
the synthesis of pharmaceutical and Cetane Number 0
cleaning products.
Octane Number ~130
Although ammonia is common in Flash point (° C) -33
nature and widely used, it can be toxic
in concentrated form. It is classified as Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio 6.05
a hazardous substance in the U.S. and is Adiabatic Flame Temperature at 1 bar (° C) 1800
subject to strict reporting requirements
by facilities that produce, store or use it in
Table 4: Properties of ammonia.
significant quantities18.
It can be synthesized from fossil fuels or biomass with the use of conventional or renewable energy.
Currently, ammonia is produced in large scale from hydrocarbon fuels that are used to produce
hydrogen by reforming methane with steam. The nitrogen required for production is separated from
air after liquefaction.
Renewable energy sources can be used to produce hydrogen from the electrolysis of water and later
synthesized to ammonia. In this case, it can be considered an electro-fuel, with zero-carbon intensity during
production or use.

Based on its physical and chemical properties, ammonia can be a viable marine fuel. It is free of carbon and
sulfur, and thus eliminates the formation of CO2 or SOx during combustion. It has higher energy density by
volume than hydrogen and can be liquefied at 8.6 bar and at ambient temperature, which makes it easy to
store on board the vessel. It is commonly stored at 17 bar to keep in a liquid state, even when the surrounding
temperature increases.
The widespread use of ammonia in industrial and agricultural processes makes it a logistically attractive and
affordable fuel that can be distributed in the existing network of infrastructure.
Historically, ammonia was first demonstrated as a fuel for internal combustion engines in 1822, in a locomotive;
later, during World War II, it was used in Belgium to fuel buses for public transportation19.
It is a low reactivity fuel — high octane number (ON), low centane number (CN) — which has high resistance
to auto-ignition and is conducive to spark-ignition combustion. Ammonia also has been used in compression-
ignition engines with the aid of a pilot diesel injection to ignite the mixture.
Ammonia has high heat of vaporization, which results in considerable evaporative cooling of the mixture after
injection and reduces the cylinder temperature at the start of combustion; helping to control NOx formation.
However, any benefit may be offset by the fuel-bound nitrogen, which may increase NOx formation. Ammonia
has low heating value (18.8 MJ/kg), but it also has a low stoichiometric air/fuel ratio.
MAN recently introduced the ME-LGIM engine, which was designed to operate on a DF combustion mode with
methanol and diesel. The same engine can be used with ammonia instead of methanol with slight modifications
to the fuel-delivery system to supply ammonia at 70 bar and inject it into the cylinder at 600–700 bar.
Experimental studies have shown that combustion with ammonia results in similar or lower NOx
formation than diesel20, and two to six times lower CO2. However, it can result in some ammonia slip if it is
injected into the cylinder during the exhaust valve event. The high-pressure direct-injection systems used in DF
engines, such as the MAN ME-LGIM, can inject fuel late in the compression stroke to avoid ammonia slip; NOx
emissions can be further reduced by using exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), or selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
aftertreatment for the exhaust gas.
Table 5 shows the well-to-tank emissions for ammonia production, transmission and distribution. The
production emissions include those associated with electricity generation for production and synthesis of
ammonia21. The transmission and distribution emissions were calculated using the Greenhouse gases, Regulated
Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) model output of emissions for the transmission and
distribution of LNG as a proxy, since natural gas pipelines could be converted to carry ammonia.
Production Emissions Transmission and Distribution Total Emissions

Electricity Source
(g CO2e/MJ) Emissions (g CO2e/MJ) (g CO2e/MJ) (A+B)
Municipal Waste 18.31 0.42 18.73
Hydropower 20.46 0.42 20.89
Nuclear Power 45.23 0.42 45.66
Biomass 45.77 0.42 46.20
Table 5: Well-to-tank emissions for ammonia by energy source for the production process.
In the light gas group presented in the previous section, hydrogen was shown to be the zero-carbon fuel that can
provide solutions for long-term decarbonization of the global fleet. In the heavy gas group, ammonia can provide
similar solutions in the medium-term.
However, since ammonia is synthesized from hydrogen, these fuels are linked in terms of infrastructure and
technology development. In comparison, ammonia is a logistically attractive and affordable fuel, which is easier to
handle, store and transport. It can be used neat in compression-ignition or spark-ignition engines, or as a hydrogen
carrier for future applications.
Figure 6 shows a summary of hydrogen and ammonia production, transportation and utilization as presented
by the Japanese Science and Technology Agency. Both fuels can be produced renewably as electro-fuels
from electrolysis of water and can be used according to the market demand and technical requirements for
different applications.

Hydrogen Transport Utilization

production (Energy carriers)
Reforming/
Natural gas gasification
Petroleum Liquid hydrogen Gasification
Coal H2 LH2(-253° C)
H2
Fuel cell vehicle
Power generation
Fuel Cell
Organic hydrides
(methylcyclohexane)
(H2 6wt%)
Renewable Carbon dioxide CH3 CH3 Dehydrogenation

energy capture and storage
3 H2
toluene MCH
NH3 direct
combustion
H2 Ammonia NH3 gas turbine
Liquid: -33° C or 8.5 Bar
Production by (H2 18wt%) Direct use Fuel cell
electricity and heat as a fuel NH3 furnace
Figure 6: Hydrogen and ammonia production and use.
Nevertheless, the cost of producing ammonia-based fuels and making them safe for marine use needs to be
explored further. Apart from the cost of adapting infrastructure, ammonia is toxic to humans and aquatic
life. Considerable safety measures must be taken.
Advantages Disadvantages
• Carbon free — no CO2 or soot • Can be stored and • Toxicity
• Low flammability risk — transported as liquid at • Fuel infrastructure
15-25 percent in air relatively low pressure or
• Missing regulations
temperature
• Can be produced from • Engine development 2-3 years
electrical energy — renewable • Established commercial
product • Cost
• Easily reformed to H2 and N2
• Direct ammonia fuel cells • Needs SCR
under development • Low energy content — tank almost
three times larger than HFO
CHALLENGES
LPG has a higher density than air and any spills will collect in lower spaces, requiring a different approach
to leak detection and ventilation. LPG is also a low-flashpoint liquid and, when used in a high fire risk space
of the ship with a constant personnel presence, such as in the engine room, a double-walled pipeline must
be used for secondary containment.
Hydrocarbon sensors will detect any leakage and contain the fuel within the secondary containment before
it reaches areas where humans are present and double-walled pipelines must be used below the deck line.
The auto-ignition temperature of LPG (490° C) is lower than that of LNG (580° C), which may require a lower
surface temperature near electrical equipment. Compared to LNG, LPG has fewer challenges related to
temperature because it is not cryogenically stored. But it has challenges related to higher density as a gas
and a lower ignition range, with a lower flammability limit of about two percent.
Methanol is currently more expensive than low-sulfur MGO, which makes it a less attractive solution under
the current regulatory landscape. In addition, the shipping industry is greatly affected by fuel price volatility,
therefore the supply of methanol needs to be supported by contractual measures that limit this volatility.
Ammonia is a promising zero-carbon fuel for future vessels but the cost of producing it and making it
safe for marine use needs to be further explored and understood. It addition, it requires considerable safety
precautions due to its toxicity to humans and aquatic life.

Early applications of methanol in dual-fuel engines identified issues with the degradation of lubricating
oil due to the oxygen in the fuel, but were easily addressed. Methanol slip to the exhaust may lead to
the formation of formaldehyde at 400–600° C, which needs to be treated, but engines that use direct fuel
injection have shown very little methanol slip.
MGO Methane Ethane Propane Butane Hydrogen Ammonia Methanol Ethanol
Flash point, ° C > 60 -188 -135 -104 -60 - 132 11 16
Boiling Point,
180 - 360 -162 -86 -42 -1 -253 -33 65 78
° C 1bar
Density,
900 450 570 500 600 76.9 696 790 790
kg/m3 liquid
Conventional
or cryogenic/ CONV CRYO CRYO CRYO CRYO CRYO CRYO CONV CONV
pressurized tanks
Secondary tank
No Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* No No
barrier required
Additional
cofferdam or hold No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
space requirements
Volume
comparison MGO, 1 1.78 1.41 1.66 1.40 4.16 2.45 2.44 1.82
energy density
* Except type C tanks
Table 6: Storage requirement of different fuels.
REGULATORY
The revised International Code for the Construction and Equipment and Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in
Bulk (IGC) allows gases other than natural gas to be used as fuel. If acceptable to the administration, other
cargo gases may be used as fuel, providing that the same level of safety as natural gas in the code is ensured.
However, the use of cargo identified as toxic in chapter 19 would not be permitted.
The International Code of Safety for Ships Using Gases or Other Low Flashpoint Fuels (IGF) contains
functional requirements for all appliances and arrangements to the usage of low-flashpoint fuels. Part 1
of the IGF Code covers only natural gas, but other fuels can be used as well, provided that they meet the
intent of the goals and functional requirements, and provide an equivalent level of safety. The latter has to
be demonstrated as specified in the SOLAS regulation II-1/55 II-1/55, which refers to the IMO Guidelines for
alternative design and arrangements, MSC.1/Circ.1212. This approach is already in the MVR under 5C-13-2/3.

BIO/SYNTHETIC FUEL PATHWAY
T
he bio/synthetic fuel pathway consists of fuels that have similar physical and chemical properties to
diesel but are produced from renewable sources. These properties allow them to be used as drop-in
fuels for power generation and propulsion systems and take advantage of the existing fuel transport
and bunkering infrastructure. As such, they can provide logistically and economically attractive solutions
for current and future marine vessels. Biofuels can be produced from different types of biomass feedstocks
using established techniques (Figure 1). When produced from plant fibers, they have the potential to reduce
the life-cycle carbon footprint of a vessel, because the carbon dioxide (CO2) absorption from the plants
offsets the emissions from combustion. However, the carbon reduction potential, economics, and viability of
different biofuels depend on their source feedstock and production pathways.
Feedstock Processing Fuel Precursor Processing Biofuel
SVO
Pressing or
Oil Crops Vegetable Oil Esterification Biodiesel (FAME)
Extraction
Hydrotreating
Renewable Diesel
and Refining
Sugar/Starch
Hydrolysis Sugar Fermentation Ethanol, Butanol
Crops
Pretreatment and Lignin Diesel Oil

Lignin Residue Solvolysis
Hydrolysis (LDO)
Lignocellulosic Catalyzed Upgraded

Pyrolysis Bio-oil Pyrolysis Oil
Biomass Upgrading
Hydrothermal
Bio-crude Catalytic Refining Upgraded Bio-oil
Liquefaction
Methane,
Methanol, DME
Gasification Syngas Catalyzed
Synthesis
FT-Diesel
Catalyzed
Wood Extractives Pulping Tank Oil Renewable Diesel
Upgrading
Catalyzed
Algae Oil Extraction Green Crude Renewable Diesel
Upgrading
Figure 1: Overview of biofuel production pathways from different biomass feedstocks.
Biofuels are often categorized by the biomass feedstock. First generation biofuels are generally produced
from food crops, such as corn, soy and sugarcane, which make them unattractive from a socioeconomic
perspective; second generation biofuels do not compete with food crops and are produced from
lignocellulosic biomass, such as switchgrass, trees, bushes and corn stalks; third or higher generation
biofuels can be produced from sources such as algae, which has the potential for higher fuel yield during
production with the use of conventional or renewable energy.
In the latter case, the use or renewable energy can further reduce the carbon footprint of such fuels during
production. Second- the third-generation biofuels produced from non-food feedstock (e.g. agricultural and
forestry residue, energy crops, algae) are also referred to as "advanced biofuels."
Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) is the most common first-generation biodiesel and is produced from a
variety of plant or animal oils. Plant feedstocks include rapeseed (common in the EU), soybean (the U.S. and

South America), coconut (Pacific Chemical composition FAME (B100) Diesel

Islands), palm (Southeast Asia) Density at 20° C (kg/m3) 885 825
and corn (U.S.). Animal feedstocks
include rendered beef, poultry litter, LHV (MJ/kg) 37.1 43.1
and other animal fats. Used cooking Viscosity at 20° C (mm2/s) 7.5 5.0
oil can also be used to produce
FAME biodiesel23. Surface Tension (N/m) 0.026 0.028
Cetane Number (CN) 56 40-50

FAME is produced through
transesterification, where various Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio 12.5 15
oils (triglycerides) are converted to Oxygen Content (% vol.) ~11 0
methyl esters. This process yields
hydrocarbon species that are similar
Table 1: Properties of FAME biodiesel.
to those of petroleum diesel. FAME
has similar physical processes to
diesel (Table 1); it is not toxic and biodegradable. However, it has somewhat different chemical properties,
which should be taken into consideration when used in engines. Specifically, it has a higher flash point (149°
C) than diesel and degrades in the presence of water. It also has a high cloud point, which may result in
clogging of fuel filters and lines and poor fuel flow below 32° C.
Biodiesel is produced at large scale in several countries and has already been used in automotive,
locomotive, and home heating applications. In the U.S., it is used as a blendstock for ultra-low sulfur diesel,
regulated to a maximum of five percent vol. per ASTM D975, D6751 and D7371 specifications. In the EU, it is
regulated to a maximum of seven percent vol. in diesel per the EN 14214 and 590 specifications. The CIMAC
Working Group seven recently revised the ISO 8217:2012 standards for marine gas oil/marine diesel oil (MGO/
MDO) to allow the use of marine distillate fuel with up to seven percent vol. of FAME (B7).
The blended fuel is expected to meet the same technical specifications and requirements as marine
distillate fuels containing no biodiesel, so no heating will be required prior to injection. FAME has similar
density and surface tension as diesel, which result in similar behavior when injected into the cylinder for
mixture preparation. It also has higher cetane number (CN) than diesel, which promotes autoignition and
may reduce the ignition delay and noise during combustion.
FAME has good lubricity properties and thus protects the fuel pumps and injectors against wear. However,
it contains oxygen and thus has lower energy content than diesel, which may increase the required tank
volume when used in large amounts.
The presence of oxygen in the fuel results in low oxidative stability, so it is prone to degrade over time and
form peroxides, acids, and other insoluble compounds; oxidation can also lead to bacterial growth in tanks
and sludging of the fuel lines, filters and injectors.
Although biodiesel is not miscible with water, it is very hydroscopic and tends to form emulsions that may
increase the acid content in the fuel and the microbial contamination23. Biocide can be used as an additive
to inhibit bacterial growth and a number of other additives can be used to lower the cloud point of FAME to
make it suitable for use in diesel engines.
Benefits and Challenges Diesel FAME Several experimental studies on automotive

Energy content + - light- and heavy-duty engines have
documented some of these effects of using
Tank volume requirement + - biodiesel. For blends up to B20, it was
Engine efficiency + + found that the fuel-bound oxygen tends to
decrease carbon monoxide and non-methane
Mixture preparation + + hydrocarbon emissions. However, they increase
Combustion noise - + nitrogen oxides (NOx) formation24.
Lubricity + + Regarding biodiesel degradation, it was found

Fuel degradation + - that blending up to 10 percent may not have
any effects, but larger blends lead to the
Emissions -- - degradation of fuel filters and oil sludging25.
Cost + -- Based on the above, the recommendations of
the CIMAC WG7 for using blended diesel up

to B7 are to avoid storage for more than six months and implement fuel condition monitoring, and to avoid
storing biodiesel in isolated individual unit tanks.
The production of first-generation biodiesel generally results in high fuel cost due to the limited supply of
feedstock and competition from the food, pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries. In addition, the feedstock
supply for biodiesel is significantly less than petroleum diesel, so present biodiesel production cannot fully
replace the consumption of diesel. Based on these limitations, biodiesel can be used in blends, but as a long-
term solution it would be economically and logistically unattractive to use it as a large-scale marine fuel.
Hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) or renewable diesel is an advanced biofuel that is produced from plant oils
or animal fat through hydrotreating and refining, typically in the presence of a catalyst. Hydrogen is used to
remove the oxygen from oil to yield a fuel that does not have the inherent limitations of FAME.
Unlike FAME, no chemicals are

Chemical Composition HVO Diesel
needed to produce HVO and no
glycerol is produced as a side Density at 20° C (kg/m3) 780 825
product. However, LPG is produced
LHV (MJ/kg) 44.0 43.1
as a side product and is commonly
used to fulfill some of the energy Viscosity at 40° C (mm2/s) 3.0 3.5
requirements of the plants. This
Cetane Number (CN) 80-99 40-50
process yields a hydrocarbon
composition that meets the Aromatics Content (% vol.) 0 ~30
conventional diesel requirements
Oxygen Content (% vol.) 0 0
(ASTM D975, EN 590). HVO is a
mixture of paraffins, free of sulfur, Sulfur Content (ppm) < 10 < 10
aromatics and esters; it has very
high CN, a heating value that is
Table 2: Properties of HVO renewable diesel.
slightly higher than diesel, and good
stability for storage. Also, its cold-
flow properties can be tailored by additional catalytic processing during production.
In a similar fashion to FAME, several experimental studies on engines have used 100 percent HVO in
automotive light- and heavy-duty diesel engines. Combustion with HVO resulted in 28–46 percent less
particulate emissions and Filter Smoke Number (FSN) than diesel, attributed to the absence of aromatic
compounds in HVO, which form soot precursors26.
NOx formation was also reduced by five to 14 percent due to the differences in peak cylinder temperature
resulting from lower ignition delay with HVO. HVO also produced less CO2 due to its favorable hydrogen/
carbon ratio (0.18) compared to diesel (0.16). The higher gravimetric heating value of HVO resulted in three to
four percent lower specific fuel consumption,
thus higher engine efficiency; however, the
Benefits and Challenges Diesel HVO
lower density of HVO resulted in four to five
Energy content + ++ percent higher volumetric fuel consumption27.
Among all the studies performed it was
Tank volume requirement + -
concluded that no changes to the hardware
Engine efficiency + ++ or control parameters were required to the
diesel engines to use HVO, but specific engine
Mixture preparation + +
optimization may yield greater benefits. The
Combustion noise - + following table summarizes the benefits and
challenges of HVO in comparison to diesel.
Lubricity + +
Fuel degradation + + Production of HVO can take place in

oil refineries, as they are equipped with
Emissions -- +
hydrotreating facilities. However, modifications
Cost + - may be needed to develop HVO-only
production facilities. The production process
is more expensive than for FAME biodiesel; however, the result is a drop-in renewable fuel, which can be
introduced to the distribution and refueling facilities and diesel engines without modifications. HVO is
currently produced commercially at large scale and its production has consistently increased in the last
decade (Figure 2). Since it is a drop-in renewable fuel, it can be used neat or in blends with heavy fuel oil
(HFO)/MGO and it will reduce the carbon footprint of the vessel in proportion to the blended amount.

Energy content (exajoules)

4
World Total
3.5 Exajoules
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
HVO/HEFA Biodiesel (FAME) Ethanol

© REN21
Figure 2: Global trends in ethanol, FAME and HVO production, 2007-2017.
Although HVO is based on renewable feedstock, its production capacity is currently not enough to satisfy the
needs of short- and long-distance shipping; therefore, it will have to be used in blends with HFO/MGO in the
short- to medium-term. HVO feedstock prices tend to vary depending on the source and season23. For example,
the price of palm oil peaked at $1,250/Mt in February 2011 but fell to $650/Mt in 2016. In a similar fashion, the
price of cooking oil peaked at $720/Mt in January 2013 but fell to $400/Mt in 201623. Lipid prices are affected by
the season, but also by labor costs and land utilization, adding to their volatility. The following table compares
the basic properties and prices of different fuels relevant to marine vessels.
Property HFO MGO LNG FAME HVO Ethanol Methanol
LHV (MJ/kg) 39.0 43.1 47.1 37.1 44.1 26.7 19.9
Sulfur content (% m) < 3.5 2 0 0 0 0 0

Cost (USD/Mt) 290 482 270 1040 542 503 464
Table 3: Comparison of energy content, sulfur content, and cost or alternative fuels28.
MEDIUM- AND LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT
FAME and HVO can provide short-term solutions for reducing the carbon footprint of marine vessels.
But to approach carbon-neutral shipping, second- or higher-generation biofuels will need to be adopted in
large scale.
Second-generation biofuels are produced from lignocellulosic feedstock and their production pathway
includes thermochemical processes. These use high temperature and pressure in the presence of a catalyst
to convert biomass to liquid fuels, chemicals, as well as heat and power, which reduces the carbon footprint
from production. Thermochemical processing starts by converting biomass to fluid intermediates (gas or
liquid) and continues with catalytic upgrading or hydroprocessing to hydrocarbon fuels23.
Biomass gasification can be used to produce synthetic diesel, often referred to as gas-to-liquid (GTL) or
biomass-to-liquid (BTL) fuels. Gasification is used to convert biomass, under high temperature and pressure
in the presence of oxygen, to syngas (CO + H2). Syngas can be used directly as a fuel for internal combustion
engines and gas turbines or it can be further processed to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
Further processing is performed by using Fischer-Tropsch (FT) catalysts and hydrotreating to produce
synthetic diesel, methanol, or other fuels that are relevant to marine vessels. The technology used to produce

BioGrace GREET FT fuels is established, although it is

Soybean FAME 56.9 34.5 energy intensive, and was historically
used at large scale to produce liquid
Soybean HVO 50.6 47.6 fuels in Germany during World War
Palm FAME 36.9 24.2 II and in South Africa during the
apartheid embargo. During World
Palm HVO 58.9 37.5 War II, Germany produced 4.5 million
Cooking oil FAME 21.3 - barrels of synthetic diesel from coal.
Cooking oil HVO 11.6 - To produce synthetic diesel, the FT

process can be applied to natural gas
Table 4: Comparison of well-to-tank emissions for FAME and HVO or biomass, and the properties of the
in gCO2eq/MJ from different feedstocks, based on the BioGrace 1 synthetic fuel can be tailored to meet
and GREET life-cycle analysis models .
2 28 the needs of the end user. The diesel-
like compounds produced by the FT
process are typically of two types: one with a moderate CN (approximately 60), low aromatic content (less
than 15 percent) product; and a second product with a high CN (greater than 74) and zero aromatic content.
The low CN products have cold-flow properties (pourpoint, cloudpoint) similar to those of petroleum diesel.
However, the lubricity properties on both types are poor and require additives before they can be used in
engines. Given their similar physical and chemical properties to diesel, FT synthetic diesels can be used neat
or in blends with petroleum
diesel without any modifications Chemical composition GTL/BTL Diesel
to the engines and fuel supply
Density at 20° C (kg/m3) 770–785 825
systems.
LHV (MJ/kg) 43.0 43.1
Synthetic diesel has been
Viscosity at 40° C (mm2/s) 3.2–4.5 3.5
experimentally tested on a
variety of automotive heavy- Cetane Number (CN) ~60, > 74 40–50
duty engines, and all data have
Aromatics Content (% vol.) < 15, 0 ~30
consistently shown reductions in
regulated emissions compared to Oxygen Content (% vol.) 0 0
baseline diesel operation29. The
Sulfur Content (ppm) < 10 < 10
absence or aromatics reduces
soot emissions and enables the
use of modern emissions control Table 5: Properties of GTL/BTL renewable diesel.
systems. The high CN makes the
mixture more prone to autoignition thus reduces the ignition delay, noise, and NOx formation. In addition,
synthetic diesel was found to promote combustion efficiency and reduce CO emissions.
Based on the above, synthetic diesel can be a viable solution for future marine vessels with strong potential
to reduce the carbon footprint of shipping. From an economic perspective, biofuels produced through
gasification feature high energy and refining costs because they are high quality, clean fuels. Therefore, their
price is expected to be higher than FAME or HVO and will rely on economies of scale to become competitive.
From an environmental-sustainability perspective, the production of synthetic diesel from biomass has the
potential to reduce the overall carbon footprint of the vessel. However, the synthesis of diesel from syngas
creates opportunities for further reductions using renewable energy (electro-fuels).
Figure 3 shows a potential production pathway of synthetic diesel that combines renewable energy and
carbon capture. The renewable energy is used to produce hydrogen from water electrolysis; the hydrogen is
then used along with CO2 captured from the atmosphere to produce syngas, which can be further processed
to produce liquid fuels.

Low-Carbon Synthetic Liquid Fuels Production (Power-to-Liquids)
CO2 source (e.g. captured emissions Chemical Products

from a coal-burning power plant’s smokestack
CO2
Kerosene
Methane (CH4)
produced via
H2
Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis
H2O
O2
Electrolysis
Diesel Fuel
Figure 3: Schematic representation of GTL fuel production using renewable © DW
energy for water electrolysis and CO2 capture.
As an alternative to synthetic
Chemical composition DME Diesel
diesel, the syngas produced
during gasification can be Density at 20° C (kg/m3) 668 825
converted to dimethyl ether
LHV (MJ/kg) 28.4 43.1
(DME) via methanol dehydration
or methane using the Sabatier Boiling point (° C) -25 3.5
process23. DME is a colorless, non-
Cetane Number (CN) 55–60 40–50
toxic gas, which is easy to liquefy
and transport. It is comprised of Aromatics Content (% vol.) 0 ~30
smaller molecules than those
Sulfur Content (ppm) 0 < 10
present in LPG and can be an
alternative fuel to diesel. The
low-carbon content Table 6: Properties of DME.
of DME enables significant
reductions in CO2 emissions and the absence of carbon bonds in the molecule eliminates soot formation
during combustion.
Combustion with DME has been experimentally tested on automotive heavy-duty diesel engines and by
manufacturers such as AB Volvo, Isuzu Trucks, Shanghai Diesel and Nissan. The results verified that the
absence of carbon bonds and the presence of oxygen in the fuel eliminates soot formation and enables engine
optimization for minimizing NOx formation and fuel consumption30.
Its higher CN than diesel decreases the ignition delay, the pressure rise during combustion (noise) and NOx
formation31. The latter is further supported by DME’s lower adiabatic flame temperature than diesel and its
higher tolerance to exhaust gas recirculation. The engine fuel conversion efficiencies reported when using
DME were similar to that of baseline diesel operation32.
The disadvantages of DME are its lower energy content than diesel, which necessitates larger storage tanks on
board marine vessels, and its low viscosity and lubricity, which requires the use of additives to avoid supply
line leakages and surface wear of moving parts.
Production of DME has been rapidly growing in recent years, primarily because it is used as a substitute and
supplement for propane in China. Over 5 million tons of DME per year are currently produced by means of
methanol dehydration and production is expected to grow rapidly.

Several countries have installed significant new DME-

production facilities (e.g. Japan, Korea, Brazil) and others have
plans for major capacity additions (e.g. Egypt, India, Indonesia).
In Sweden, waste streams from pulping are used to produce
BioDME, which is expected to grow in demand by 2030.
DME can be produced in a distributed fashion using small-

scale facilities. Figure 4 shows a small-scale production unit
by Oberon Fuels, which has been used to produce DME to fuel
prototype heavy-duty diesel engines.
© Ron Jautz 2020
Agriculture
Biogas
Transportation
Natural Gas + CO2 Syngas Methanol DME

Construction
© Oberon Fuels
Figure 4: Schematic representation of DME production.

CARBON CAPTURE
AND SEQUESTRATION
T
he effort to reduce the carbon footprint from shipping has led the industry to explore alternative
low- and zero-carbon fuels, technologies and methods to increase vessel efficiency. Exhaust gas
aftertreatment systems are among the technologies that can contribute to the reduction of greenhouse
gases (GHG) and other regulated emissions.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) refers to a set of technologies that can be used to remove carbon
dioxide (CO2) from vessel exhaust gas or the atmosphere and store it for subsequent use.
Combustion of zero-carbon fuels, such as ammonia and hydrogen, would result in zero CO2 formation;
however, in all other cases of fuels presented in this report — liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG), methanol, bio or renewable diesel and dimethyl ether (DME), — CO2 will form as a
complete combustion product in proportion to the carbon content of the fuel.
Therefore, with all but the zero-carbon fuels, CCS technology could be used on board ships to further reduce
their carbon emissions.
CO2 can be removed either from the exhaust gas of marine engines or directly from the atmosphere, a
method often referred to as “direct air capture.” Both technologies are based on the same fundamental
principles, but removing CO2 from the exhaust gas requires less energy because of its higher CO2
concentration compared to air.
The separation of CO2 from any stream requires two steps: capture and desorption/regeneration.
During capture, the CO2 is absorbed into a solid or liquid by contacting the CO2 source with the absorber. In
the desorption/regeneration step, CO2 is selectively desorbed from the absorber, resulting in a flow of pure
CO2 gas, and the original capture absorber is regenerated for further use33.
Over the last 20 years, many research groups around the world have explored CCS technologies to increase
the efficiency of the capture and reduce the volume and cost of the systems.
Heat
CO2 Biohydrogen
Biomethane
Combustion Synthetic biofuels
Fermentation Electricity
Fuel upgrading
Aerobic Digestion Gas cleaning
Gasification Liquidation
Energy
products
CO2
Energy crops Capture Non-energy

High biomass yield Compression by-products
Extensive availability Transport
Biomass residues
Geological Saline aquifers
storage Depleted oil and gas fields
Figure 1: Schematic representation of carbon capture and sequestration technology.

CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION
© Anatoly Menzhiliy/Shutterstock
Due to their present size, the majority of CCS systems have been designed and demonstrated in electric
power plants. However, a recent concept study by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) focused on installing a
marine carbon capture and storage unit on a very large crude carrier (VLCC).
The system comprised four towers for cooling the exhaust, absorbing CO2, treating the exhaust and
regenerating the CO2, in addition to the required liquefaction and storage facilities. The objective of the
project was to investigate onboard production of methane or methanol by combining hydrogen from water
electrolysis with the captured CO2.
MHI reported a CO2 capture rate of about 86 percent, which is expected to improve with further advances of
this technology. However, the capital cost required for the CCS system was about $30M, and the cost for the
methane or methanol production system was an additional $15M.
This level of investment would require 20 years to recover, making current CCS technology challenging from
an economic perspective. In addition to the economic challenge, MHI reported that the size and weight of
the system requires the vessel to be redesigned. Each of the four towers of the system is roughly the same
size as a scrubber unit, and the weight of the total system exceeds 4,500 tonnes, or nearly two percent of the
vessel’s deadweight.
Despite these technical and economic challenges, carbon capture technology still can be an effective way
to reduce the GHG emissions of future vessels, especially in combination with low-carbon fuels. Further
technical advances are expected to reduce the scale, cost and complexity of CCS technology.

© 2015 Harvey Gulf International Marine, LLC. All Rights Reserved
HYBRID ELECTRIC POWER
T
he International Maritime Organization's (IMO) efforts to decarbonize international shipping are
expected to accelerate the electrification of power generation and propulsion systems, which offer
the potential for operational flexibility, optimized power consumption, efficiency improvements and
lower emissions from ships.
Hybrid-electric propulsion systems currently are used in the maritime industry and are increasing in
popularity; their adoption is being led by offshore support vessels and harbor tugs, where the systems
readily provide additional energy on demand.
Vessels and offshore installations require electric power for a wide range of components, from those that
support communications and navigation systems to crew comfort and reliable propulsion systems.
These systems have the potential to improve reliability, operational efficiency, fuel consumption rates,
environmental footprints and maintenance costs when compared to traditional electric power systems. A
fully integrated hybrid system may include the energy storage system (ESS), power generation, and power
management systems.
Hybrid-electric power systems combine engines, batteries or supercapacitors, fuel cells, and electric motors to
form the power generation and propulsion system of the vessel. The architecture of a hybrid system can be
designed specifically for the requirements of each vessel and thus optimize the use of each component for
maximum efficiency (see Figure 1).
OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY
Hybrid-electric power systems also offer the flexibility to use a variety of energy storage and power
generation components. Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, supercapacitors, flywheel energy storage, fuel cells,
solar and wind power can be used to supplement, or in some cases replace, traditional gen-sets during
varying operational scenarios, such as those at sea, during maneuvering and while docking. (See Figure 1)
This diversity of electric power sources helps to improve the operational flexibility and reliability by
selectively using generators as needed and operating them at their efficient load points.
For example, vessels engaged in long, low power transits such as a river or a canal passage require multiple
generators to run in parallel for reliability purposes. The use of the appropriate energy storage system can
decrease generator use by using the battery to prevent a loss of power.

Energy storage technologies can offer similar functions during dynamic positioning operations, cable/pipe
laying, etc. Other uses include load leveling, such as with the active heave compensation required by drilling
derricks and crane systems.
OPTIMIZATION OF POWER CONSUMPTION
When alternate power generation and energy storage technologies are used on a vessel, they can minimize
the number of generators that are required, potentially optimizing their number and the operating points
during different operating scenarios. Maintenance costs can be reduced in proporation to the operating
hours of the equipment and by limiting the start/stop cycles of certain components.
Additionally, energy storage devices can offer purely electric power generation and propulsion to the vessel,
which results in zero emissions operation in ports and other environmentally sensitive areas.
Fuel Cells/
Batteries
Generator
Switchboard and
Propulsion
Propeller Conversion
Motor
Equipment
Load
Load
Charging
Batteries Fuel Cell
Systems
Switchboard and
Propulsion
Propeller Conversion Solar/Wind
Motor Load
Equipment
Load Flywheel
Figure 1: Example architectures of hybrid electric systems.
BATTERIES
The energy storage component is the central point of a hybrid-power generation system and, as such, battery
technology is an enabler for electrification of modern vessels. Batteries store and convert electrochemical
energy into electrical energy and they can be designed and optimized for any specific application. Common
chemistry types include lead-acid (PbA), nickel-metal hydride (NiMH), and Li-ion.
A battery cell is the basic battery unit, and a battery pack comprises multiple cells. Multiple cells may be
required to increase the energy storage, the pack voltage or the pack power.
Many electrical devices require higher voltage than the basic cell voltage for operation. For example,
the speed of a DC electric motor, powered directly by a battery, is approximately proportional to the
battery voltage.
Many electronic devices require battery voltages in excess of certain minimum values for the electronics to
function. Cells can be arranged in series in order to generate higher voltage and higher power, as the battery
pack voltage is simply the sum of individual cell voltages. Cells can also be arranged in parallel, in order to
generate higher current and power.

The stored energy, voltage and lifetime of a battery are dependent on the current or power extracted from
the battery. Adding more cells in parallel increases the energy, voltage and lifetime for a given power output.
The batteries used in hybrid propulsion systems are typically arranged in a combined series-parallel
configuration in order to obtain higher voltage, current, power, energy and lifetime.
Batteries can be optimized for a particular application as the usage can dictate the material selection. For
example, the battery used for a purely electric propulsion system is optimized for a wide operating range,
while the battery used for a hybrid system is optimized for a narrow operating range in order to maximize
the number of discharge cycles.
The recent advances in Li-ion batteries have created the basis for the development of modern hybrid and
electric propulsion systems. Lithium is the lightest metal, and the Li-ion battery has many advantages over
the other technologies, such as a higher energy density, higher cell voltage and longer life.
A number of variations of Li-ion chemistry have been developed by manufacturers and used in commercial
products. Early Li-ion chemistry types feature cobalt and manganese as the main metals; the choice and mix
of materials can significantly influence the energy density, lifetime, safety and cost.
Manufacturers such as Panasonic, Corvus, LG Chem and AESC among others, are offering a wide range
of batteries that have been used primarily in electric and hybrid propulsion systems for automotive
applications.
Performance parameters: The critical parameters when selecting a battery for marine applications are:
• Cell voltage
• Specific energy
• Cycle life
• Specific power
• Self-discharge
© 2015 Harvey Gulf International Marine, LLC. All Rights Reserved

The cell voltage is a function of the chemical reaction within the battery and can vary significantly with the
State of Charge (SOC), age, temperature, and charge or discharge rate. The rated voltage of a battery cell is
the average voltage over a full discharge cycle. Operation at high voltage can result in significantly reduced
battery lifetime, while, operation at a low voltage can result in cell failure.
The specific energy of a battery is a measure of the stored energy per unit weight. Li-ion has the highest
energy density among different chemistry types. The specific energy of the Li-ion battery is approximately
three to five times higher than that of the lead-acid battery.
Cycle life is a measure of the number of times a battery can be charged or discharged before it reaches the
end of its life. Electrochemical batteries degrade with time and usage. Factors such as temperature and cell
voltage also play a critical role. Li-ion has the highest cycle life and NiMH is similar. Lead-acid batteries have
a significantly lower lifetime than the other two.
Lithium-titanate (LiT) is a variation of lithium battery that eliminates the important aging problem of Li-ion.
Although LiT has a lower cell voltage and specific energy, the considerable increase in cycle life makes this
chemistry type an attractive option for electric and hybrid propulsion systems.
Specific power is a measure of the discharge power available from a battery pack per unit weight. Lead-acid
traditionally has had a high specific power and is used as the starter battery for different applications. Newer
batteries, such as the Li-ion and NiMH have comparable specific power ratings.
Electrochemical cells consume energy even when they are not being charged or discharged. This energy
use is a parasitic loss of stored energy and is known as "self-discharge." Self-discharge rates can increase
significantly with temperature; the self-discharge for Li-ion batteries is less than two percent, but the
overall self-discharge of a battery pack can be closer to five percent due to the electronic system and circuits
managing the pack.
LIFETIME AND SIZING CONSIDERATIONS
Unlike many electrical and electronic devices, an electrochemical battery can have a relatively short lifetime
depending on its chemistry. Marine batteries are currently designed for a 7-10 year lifetime, but this should be
extended to over 15 years in order to match the lifespan of a vessel, can which be a challenge for manufacturers.
Electrochemical devices, such as batteries, fuel cells and electrolytic capacitors can degrade relatively fast as
they age, especially with increased usage. In recent years, the market has shifted from relatively short-life
lead-acid batteries to longer-life NiMH and Li-ion batteries.
Predicting the lifespan of a battery is a complex task, but the key factors affecting it are the (i) voltage, (ii)
temperature, (iii) time and (iv) cycling.
High voltage can result in breakdown of the electrolyte, increased effects of impurities, and accelerated
loss of lithium from the electrodes, all of which increase the resistance, reduce the storage capacity and
consequently reduce the lifetime. Lower cell voltage can increase the battery lifetime, but it also reduces the
energy storage within the cell, which creates a trade-off for optimum battery use.
Operation at high temperatures can significantly reduce the lifetime and reliability of a battery, therefore it is
important to implement thermal-management techniques for preserving the battery packs. Operation at very
low temperatures can also be a problem for some battery technologies, because the electrolyte can become
more viscous and have decreased conductivity.
Freezing of Li-ion cells at temperatures less than -10° C (14° F) reduces the amount of power and stored energy
available from a battery. For this reason, manufacturers offer battery heaters for colder climates in order to
ensure adequate performance. Ideally, the battery is heated when charged from the grid so that energy is
saved for vessel propulsion at sea.
One of the biggest challenges for every manufacturer is to develop batteries with lifetime comparable to that
of a vessel. Factors such as voltage, temperature and cycles affect its lifetime as discussed above. As the battery
ages, there is also a reduction in the lithium available as the active materials. A lower SOC results in lower
cell voltage, which slows the degradation of the electrolyte and the loss of active lithium.

FAILURE AND PROTECTION
Batteries can be a source of catastrophic failure resulting in dangerous and possibly life-threatening
consequences. Battery packs must undergo rigorous testing in order to ensure benign failure modes. As
general guidelines, the battery should not emit particles, or any toxic and hazardous gases. Care must also be
taken in manufacturing, transporting, using and recycling of batteries. Many safety standards exist to define
the level of danger from batteries; safety tests include penetration, crash, thermal stability, overcharge/
discharge, and externals short.
BATTERY MANAGEMENT
A battery pack is a complex energy storage system, which requires robust control to ensure its safe operation.
A typical battery management system performs the following tasks, it:
• Monitors the voltage, current, power and temperature
• Estimates the SOC
• Maintains the health of the battery and conducts diagnostics
• Protects against fault conditions such as overcurrent, overcharge, undercharge, short circuit, and
excessively high or low temperatures
In contrast to batteries, supercapacitors have so far found limited use in marine applications. Proving their
viability will require more research and development in capacitor elements, modules, packs, ancillary
functions, capacitor management systems, cooling arrangements, and safety functions.
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS AND APPLICATIONS
As marine technology evolves and regulatory requirements increase, the industry is faced with the
challenge of simultaneously trying to comply with environmental requirements and meet operational
demands.
In this commercial environment, owners and operators are increasingly compelled to turn to
non-conventional sources of energy to power and propel vessels; hybrid-electric power systems can
play a key role in meeting the demand for more efficient, low-carbon propulsion options.
Classification societies such as ABS are helping the industry to adopt hybrid systems by developing
guidelines and rules. A chronology and sample of ABS' focus for guidelines and rules for marine and
offshore applications is shown in Figure 2.
Solar, Wind
(future work)
Energy Generation
Energy Distribution
Fuel Cell Guide
Energy Storage (published Oct. 2019)
DC Distribution Guide
(published July 2018)
ABS Lithium Battery

Guide (published
May 2017), ABS
Overview
supercapacitor Guide
(published Nov. 2017)
ABS Hybrid Advisory

(published Feb. 2017)
Figure 2: ABS publications on hybrid electric systems and components

SEACOR Marine recently installed a hybrid system

using Li-ion batteries on the SEACOR Maya. With
the design and components tested and approved for
hybrid power integration, the vessel was converted
at Bollinger Shipyards in Morgan City, Louisiana, and
sent for sea trials in May 2018.
The integration of the Li-ion battery system was

completed and operational within 90 days, a
transition that the owner says reduced the vessel’s
average fuel consumption by 20 percent. As a result
of this performance, SEACOR adapted three more
© Seacor Marine
vessels for service and has plans for six more. ABS
Figure 3: ABS/SEACOR Marine AIP. provided an initial Approval in Principle (AIP) for
the design, as well as classification.
Wärtsilä recently introduced a hybrid propulsion system (HY) that combines a diesel engine, with batteries,
a generator, and DC power electronics; it can be configured in a series or parallel architecture (Figure 4). In
the parallel configuration, the engine and shaft generator are connected to the propeller through a gearbox;
in the series configuration, the diesel engine is only coupled to a generator to produce electric power,
without driving the propeller, which is electrically driven.
Figure 4: Wärtsilä HY system in parallel and series configurations.
This hybrid system was installed into a 90-tbp harbor tug in 2018 that is used for ice breaking operations
at the northern end of the Baltic Sea (Figure 5). Wärtsilä reported that each component of the system was
designed to be hybridized, and the entire system is controlled to maximize energy efficiency, performance,
lifetime, and safety, while minimizing emissions and smoke levels.

Figure 5: Wärtsilä HY system installed in a harbor tug vessel.
IMPACT
As the industry prepares to shift to low- and zero-emissions propulsion, hybrid solutions will play an
important role in maximizing vessel efficiency. In order to meet the IMO’s decarbonization goal for 2050,
owners will need to commit to a solution long before the deadline, given that the lifespan of some vessels
can exceed 30 years. Ongoing market applications of hybrid-electric power systems is providing valuable
data and knowledge to expand the:
• Operational knowledge and experience of hybrid technologies
• Competence training for crew and operational personnel
• Methods for thermal management of battery systems
• Use of data analytics and its impact on ESS modeling
• Control software products and cyber security as hybrid-electric systems become more integrated in the
primary functions of a vessel
Today, the vast majority of vessels are powered by conventional electric power plants, diesel, gas, or dual-fuel
engine-generator sets; however, hybrid electric and electric-drive vessels are expected to gain market share
in commercial ships, with initial applications to feature in small- and medium-sized vessels.
The rate at which hybrid systems are adopted has the potential to be impacted by conventional fuel supply
and price trends. Significant changes in the way supply chains are managed have the potential to increase
fuel costs against a backdrop of rising oil prices. To alleviate the fuel costs and maximize the efficiency
of onboard power, shipowners may accelerate the adoption of hybrid systems, especially if the economic
benefits over conventional propulsion systems become more apparent.
For example, in the offshore arena, prominent European drilling companies have already committed
to hybrid, low-emission rigs. Service providers, integrators and vendors are also upgrading well intervention
vessels and drilling platforms with battery solutions, often combined with conventional electric
power generators.

On the safety front, regulations are responding to the electrification of the wider marine industry, with the
short-term emphasis on batteries, fuel cells, and setting new standards and best practice for fire protection,
installation, and operation. Industry practitioners are driving efforts to design and build safer solutions
(containerized solutions, self-cooled modular systems, etc.) dedicated to the expanding array of hybrid-
electric power systems.
These efforts will be supported by the industry’s transition to "smart" technologies — the enhanced
diagnostic and asset-monitoring capabilities that are at the center of current conditioned-based, or
predictive, maintenance trends.
CHALLENGES
The growing availability of alternative energy storage and power generation technologies provides more
options and benefits to designers of vessels and offshore installations. These options can be combined in
different and imaginative ways, and this has led to the advent of more complex electrical systems. This in
turn has influenced the entire vessel design concept.
The proper selection of the most appropriate combination of technologies is crucial and can have an
important impact on the desired benefits, such as reduction of capital expenditures (capex), operational
expenditures (opex), the environmental footprint and increased safety. The weight and size of the associated
technologies are also critical design factors, and necessary for risk assessment. It is important to note that
these factors may compete against each other.
New, more complex designs are more difficult and impractical to assess using traditional discrete electrical
design tools such as a load analysis, short-circuit analysis, coordination study and harmonic analysis.
Limiting common mode voltages and currents must also be considered in contrast to traditional alternating
current power.
As technology progresses, the means of addressing this increased complexity is being developed with the
advent of new modeling and simulation tools and techniques. The more these simulation techniques are
used to assess the electrical aspects of the design, the more the designer is able to consider other variables,
including non-technical considerations such as capex, opex and specific regulatory requirements.
When a preliminary decision is made on a design, it can be reviewed for practical aspects such as layout,
failure modes and effects analysis, response in a blackout, operation and maintenance aspects. It can also be
reviewed for compliance with class rules, other regulatory aspects and owner requirements.
© Nightman1965/Shutterstock

FUEL CELLS
F
uel cells are electrochemical devices that convert the chemical energy of a fuel to electrical energy and
heat through an electrochemical reaction.
Similar to an electrochemical battery, the electrical energy is output in the form of DC power. Unlike a
battery however, the fuel and the oxidant are stored outside of the cell and are transferred into the cell as
the reactants are consumed. The fuel cell converts energy rather than storing it and can provide continuous
power, as long as fuel is supplied.
The technology of fuel cells is established, with the first application recorded by William Grove, in England,
in 1838. However, the first commercial use of fuel cells was in the 1950s by NASA. Fuel cells are now regularly
used for primary power production on spacecrafts, such as the International Space Station. Given that
hydrogen is the fuel used for rocket propulsion, it is also convenient to use it for onboard power generation.
Fuel cells vary in type, structure, and performance characteristics. The proton-exchange membrane or
polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell, which is of interest for marine applications, was originally
invented by General Electric in the 1950s. Solid-oxide fuel cells (SOFC) have also become commercial
products for stationary power generation, while alkaline fuel cells have been commonly used for spacecrafts.
All types can use hydrogen as the fuel.
PEM fuel cells can be an attractive technology for use in marine applications due to its low operating
temperature range (less than 100° C), small size, high efficiency, and wide operating range. Challenges for
the fuel cells have been the costs of platinum for the electrodes, lifetime, sensitivity to impurities, and the
significant accessory system required to operate the fuel cell, known as "balance of plant."
The voltage of the PEM fuel cell is quite low, in the range of 0.5 to one volts over the load range. Marine
fuel cells are typically arranged in stacks with hundreds of cells in series. Stacks also can be configured in
parallel to increase the power output.
Fuel cells are of particular interest for marine applications due to the high energy density of hydrogen and
its potential for fast refueling, both of which are major challenges for batteries. Fuel cells are often seen as
a competing technology to internal combustion engines; however, their operational characteristics are quite
different, in a way that can make them complimentary technologies in a hybrid system.
FUNDAMENTAL OPERATION
The basis of operation of an electrochemical fuel cell and also of the battery cell is an oxidation-reduction
reaction, commonly known as "redox reaction."
As with a battery, a simple electrochemical fuel cell comprises two electrodes and an electrolyte. The fuel
cell is composed of two half-cells; one is the site of the oxidation reaction and the other is the site of the
reduction reaction.
The anode is the solid metal connection or electrode within the fuel cell at which oxidation occurs. It is at
the negative terminal of the fuel cell.
The cathode is the solid metal connection or electrode within the fuel cell at which reduction occurs. It is
the positive terminal of the fuel cell.
An electrolyte is a substance which contains ions and allows the flow of ionic charge. PEM fuel cells feature
a polymer electrolyte, which is designed to conduct the positive charge and insulate the electrodes.
Platinum is typically included as a catalyst for both the anode and cathode in order to split the hydrogen
molecules into ions and electrons at the anode and facilitate the combination of the hydrogen and oxygen
at the cathode. Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of a PEM fuel cell, showing the anode, cathode,
polymer electrolyte, the flows of air and fuel, as well as the electric current.

FUEL CELLS
Electric Current
Electricity is generated from hydrogen and oxygen in
a PEM fuel cell through the following process:
Water and
Excess Fuel e- Heat Out 1. Hydrogen is supplied to the anode side
(negative electrode).
e-
2. Hydrogen molecules are activated when the anode
e- catalysts release their electrons.
H+
3. The released electrons travel from the anode to the
H2O
cathode, creating an electrical current.
e- H+
H2 4. The hydrogen molecules that release electrons
become hydrogen ions and move through the
H+ polymer-electrolyte membrane to the cathode side.
O2 5. The hydrogen ions then bond with airborne oxygen
H+ and electrons on the cathode catalyst to form water
(a positive electrode) and heat.
Fuel In Air In The hydrogen and oxygen are absorbed in the gas-
diffusion layer (GDL), which acts as an electrode and
Anode Cathode enables the reactants to diffuse among the membrane,
Polymer Electrolyte and also helps to remove the water. The full assembly
of the electrodes and membrane is known as the
membrane-electrode assembly.
Figure 1: Typical Proton Exchange
Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cell.
Because the main difference between fuel-cell types
is the electrolyte, they are classified by the type of electrolyte they use. The startup time can vary drastically
between different fuel cell types and can range from one second for PEM fuel cells to 10 minutes for SOFC
(see table below).
Type Mobile Ion Operating Temperature Applications and Notes

Vehicles and mobile applications, and for
Proton Exchange
H+ 30–120° C lower power "combined heat and power" (CHP)
Membrane (PEM)
systems
Alkaline (AFC) OH- 100–250° C Used in space vehicles, (e.g., Apollo, Shuttle)
Phosphoric Acid
H+ 150–220° C Large numbers of 200 kW CHP systems in use
(PAFC)
Molten
Suitable for medium- to large-scale CHP
Carbonate CO32+ 600–700° C
systems, up to MW capacity
(MCFC)
Solid Oxide Suitable for all sizes of CHP systems, 2 kW to
O2- 650–1000° C
(SOFC) multi-MW
Table 1: Fuel Cell Types
BALANCE OF PLANT
Fuel cell power generation systems require significant support components and ancillary equipment to
produce power. These additional balance-of-plant components perform the following functions: (i) fuel
processing; (ii) air processing; (iii) thermal and water management; (iv) electrical controls; (v) protection;
and (vi) AC-DC conversion. The energy requirement for the balance of plant can be quite high, typically
consuming about 20 percent of the fuel cell output at full load for high-pressure systems and about 10
percent or less for low-pressure systems, in order to drive the fans, pumps and compressors.
AGING
The performance of fuel cells decays with time as the GDLs and membrane degrade. Endurance was
a significant challenge for the earlier generations of fuel cells; however, the latest generations have
demonstrated lifetime and operating hours that can meet or exceed the stringent marine requirements.

FUEL CELLS
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Fuel cells generate energy electrochemically, do not burn fuel and can be more efficient than internal
combustion engines. The waste heat from fuel cells can be captured for combined heat and power — a
process known as cogeneration — which can reduce energy costs. Using this waste heat can bring the system
efficiency up to 85 percent, compared with other types of electrical-generating devices. Table 2 (below)
presents a comparison between different power generation systems and their respective energy efficiencies.
Electrical Generating Device Conversion Type Energy Efficiency
Diesel Engine-Generator Diesel Fuel (Chemical) to Electrical Between 30% and 55% (combined)
Gas Turbine Chemical to Electrical Up to 40% (primary)
Gas Turbine and Steam Turbine Chemical/Thermal to Electrical Up to 60% (combined)
Wind Turbine Kinetic to Electrical Up to 59% (primary, theoretical limit)

Up to 6–40% (primary, technology-
Solar Cell Radiative to Electrical dependent, 15–20% most often,
85–90% theoretical limit)
Fuel Cell Chemical to Electrical Up to 85%
Table 2: Comparison of power generation systems.
Since fuel cells are increasingly being used for medium-to-large power generation in the marine and
offshore installations, ABS has developed the Guide for Fuel Cell Power Systems for Marine and Offshore
Applications. The Guide is applicable to marine and offshore assets designed, constructed or retrofitted with
a fuel cell using either gaseous or liquid fuels. It is also applicable to the fuel-cell power systems used for
auxiliary and main electric power systems on board vessels, offshore floating production installations, etc.
In publishing and updating the Guide, ABS continues to support the design, evaluation and construction
of fuel cell systems for marine assets. The Guide, which covers all types of fuel cells, focuses on the use of
their systems and arrangements for propulsion and auxiliary systems on new and retrofitted ships, while
maintaining safety principles.
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATIONS
Fuel-cell technology has been implemented in commercial products (i.e., forklifts, vehicles), naval
submarines, commercial ferries and offshore support vessels. It is being deployed as fuel cell power systems
for cruise ships, while other marine applications are in the planning stages.
In 2015, ABS, in collaboration with industry partners initiated the SF-BREEZE project, in which the goal was to
design and build a high-speed passenger ferry with hydrogen-fueled PEM fuel cells for operation in the San
Francisco Bay area (right, below). The SF-BREEZE received Approval in Principle (AIP) from ABS in 2016.
ABS is also involved in developing a prototype hydrogen fuel-cell unit to power onboard refrigerated
containers. This unit fits into a standard 20-foot container (left, below) to replace diesel generators which
power refrigerated containers in port and while being transported by barge. ABS also issued an AIP for this
containerized hydrogen fuel cell generator unit.
© Sandia National Laboratories, Elliott Bay Design Group
Figure 2: H2 Containerized Fuel Cell Unit (left) and the SF-BREEZE (right).

FUEL CELLS
In 2019, ABS collaborated with Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering to examine the viability of hybrid
SOFC and gas turbine generator technology for future generations of liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers.
This theoretical work demonstrated the high efficiency of electricity and heat co-generation.
The Oslo-listed Havyard Group is working with other Norwegian companies to design, certify and deliver
a large-scale hydrogen power solution that can be retrofitted onto ro/pax vessels (Figure 3). The project
is focusing on developing safe storage solutions for cryogenic hydrogen on board vessels and in other
unregulated areas related to hydrogen.
© Havyard Group
Figure 3: Conceptual design of the FreeCO2ast project.
Another Norwegian firm, NCE Maritime CleanTech, is working on a project that involves retrofitting the
Viking Energy, an offshore support vessel, with a 2-MW fuel cell using ammonia. Scheduled for completion
in 2023, the project will test the feasibility of using sustainably sourced, ammonia in a SOFC system on a
commercial ship.
In Japan, Tokyo Kisen Co. and e5 Lab Inc. are working with several groups to develop the design and
regulatory baseline for a hydrogen fuel-cell powered tugboat. e5 Lab is a joint venture group tasked with
designing the electric vessel and to share the information with all stakeholders in the shipping industry.
The targeted launch year for the commercial operation of the tug is 2022.
Canada’s Ballard Power Systems recently presented its

modular, 100 kW PEM fuel cell stack (Figure 4) that can
be used in various combinations in parallel to provide
the power and redundancy needed by a vessel, from
100 kW to 1 MW or more. These PEM stacks can be used
as the main propulsion system for small vessels, such
as ferries and river boats, for auxiliary power on larger
vessels, such as cruise ships, or for providing shore power
to vessels when they are docked.
The PEM fuel cells are a source of DC power that is

compatible with battery hybrid electric architectures and
can be deployed in parallel configurations to meet the
power requirements of hybrid-electric propulsion and © Ballard Power Systems Inc.
auxiliary power systems. They also can be optimized for Figure 4: 100 kW marine
given power, fuel storage and fuel consumption. PEM fuel-cell module.
IMPACT
The ongoing development of fuel-cell power systems for marine use is expected to encourage more:
• Joint development projects to increase knowledge sharing among maritime stakeholders.
• Competence training for crew and operational personnel.
• Research on optimizing hydrogen fuel-cell arrangements on board vessels, including best practices for
safe operation, handling, storage and the use of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies.

FUEL CELLS
The broad diversity of the fuel-cell types and their application with different marine fuels, such as LNG,
ammonia and hydrogen, has yet to lead to the identification of a single preferred arrangement. However,
more feasibility studies and safety assessments of their operations are expected to provide a greater
understanding of best practices.
Current fuel-cell technology can be used either with pure hydrogen or with other fuels that can be used to
extract hydrogen. In the latter case, fuel reforming is needed to extract the hydrogen from the fuel, which
increases the system complexity and cost. The following table summarizes the advantages and disadvantages
and each option.
Advantages Disadvantages
• Does not require reforming • Gaseous hydrogen fuel storage can
• Zero-emission power source be large and heavy (so, difficult to
accommodate)
• Provides stable and reliable DC
power distributed across the vessel • Liquid hydrogen fuel storage, although
lighter, requires high pressure and
• Offers a high level of energy
cryogenic temperatures to maintain its
efficiency
effectiveness
Pure Hydrogen Fuel • Can be stored in liquid storage
• Smaller hydrogen molecules can leak
facilities, hence enable refueling
more easily than larger fuel molecules,
at docks
resulting in complex fuel storage
and supply systems, and the need for
redundant compressors
• Expensive to acquire from present
infrastructure
• Produce lower emissions than • Requires reforming (either internal or

conventional internal combustion external) before ionizing in the fuel cell
engines • If an external reformer is not available,
Other low-flashpoint • More readily available for purchase, high temperature fuel cell types need
fuels (methanol, cheaper and safer as compared to to be used, which could lead to larger
ethanol, methane, pure hydrogen and more complicated systems
propane, butane and • Low flashpoint fuels that are
ammonia) liquid at ambient conditions, (i.e.,
methanol or ethanol, can be stored
in conventional fuel tanks and can
be simpler to apply.)
In general, the availability of resources, including fuel-cell manufacturers and fuel infrastructure (storage,
transportation, bunkering, etc.), is expected to grow as more vessels are equipped with fuel-cell power
systems in pursuit of a cleaner fuel solution. As capabilities grow, the inherent longer voyage limits have the
potential to expand the number of viable sailing routes for this technology.
At present, fuel cell technology supports small- to medium-sized marine applications. As vessel owners
search for emissions-free power solutions for larger vessels such as ro/pax, cruise ships, containerships or
tankers, scaling up fuel cell technology will become more critical.
While there are many questions to be answered about the viability and safety concerns of fuel-cell
technology for larger ships, present levels of investment in related projects and research suggests that the
industry believes they hold potential to provide solutions on the path to carbon-neutral shipping.

FUEL CELLS
© Oil and Gas Photographer/Shutterstock
CHALLENGES
Fuel cells offer a few challenges that will need to be overcome as the industry evaluates the technology’s
potential for carbon reduction. The technology is new in the marine industry, so the complexity of a new
system will need to be managed, including the need for crew training on operations and maintenance.
Additionally, there is the complex process of tying the fuel cell into the electrical-distribution system.
Fuel cells are currently more expensive that competing power generation technologies. Depending on the
type of fuel cell, exotic materials are often used as catalysts for the reaction. These can increase unit costs by
10 times on average, compared to an equivalent internal combustion engine.
With limited full-scale marine applications, there is also limited history and operational experience to
support investments and long-term expectations.
For many of the fuel cell technologies, hydrogen is a preferred fuel, which can be extracted from light
gaseous and liquid fuels. The availability of such fuels, storage challenges and bunkering infrastructure
poses many challenges to the uptake of fuel cells. Additionally, the alternative fuels required by some fuel
cells raise concerns related to the safety hazards of handling gas.
These challenges are applicable across most types of fuel cells. Additional concerns may need to be
addressed based on the chosen technology. Individual types of fuel cells can have requirements for fuel
purity (Proton Exchange Membranes) or slow start-up times (molten carbon and solid oxide varieties,
for example).

DC SYSTEMS
D
irect current (DC) power distribution systems were first proposed for lighting purposes, and patented
by Thomas Edison in 1883. However, due to limited advancements in DC technology at the time, they
were thought to be inefficient and unsuitable for transmitting power over long distances.
After technological advancements, however, they have evolved and been proven to provide several
advantages over their alternating current (AC) counterparts, including higher efficiency and reliability.
DC distribution has the potential to reduce the cost of onboard installation, as it requires fewer stages for
power conversion, less copper and less floor space. It has a simpler integration process with renewable
energy sources and energy storage systems (ESS). DC power distribution systems are simply alternatives to
the AC variety that is typically used for ships with electric propulsion. They can be used for any electrical
ship application with power demands in the tens of megawatts and can operate at voltages of around 1,000V
DC. DC systems are also suitable for vessels with equipment that is used for essential and emergency services
through a DC bus. The following figure shows a schematic of a typical DC system.
M
PEC
Li-ion Generator Engine

batteries
PEC PEC
Common DC Bus
AC loads Transformer
PEC
Li-ion Generator Engine

batteries
PEC PEC
M
PEC
Power Electronics Carrier
Figure 1: DC System.
The DC distribution system is simply an extension of the multiple DC links that exist in all propulsion and
thruster drives, which can account for more than 80 percent of the power consumption on vessels that rely
on electrical propulsion.
They offer comparative savings in space and weight and more flexibility in the placement of electrical
equipment. This can result in a significant increase in cargo space and a more functional vessel layout, one
that allows the electrical system to be designed to the functions of the vessel.
Of course, the reduced weight and on board footprint of the electrical equipment will vary according to the
type of ship and its application.

DC SYSTEMS
The major components of DC systems include:

• Power electronics (i.e., inverters, rectifiers and filters)
• DC power control
• Protective devices (bus tie DC switches, DC circuit breakers, etc.)
• ESS
• Bus ducts
The comparative energy efficiency gains are being realized in part because the DC system does not need be
locked to a specific frequency (traditionally, 60Hz on ships). The flexibility to control each power source has
opened up new ways to optimize fuel consumption and new operational efficiencies, including the ability
to vary generator speeds and voltage in line with demands for vessel services and the propulsion loads
required for dynamic-response capabilities, such as in offshore support vessels and tugs.
DC distribution arrangements also feature comparatively lower noise from vibrations.
Different network topologies have been used in marine vessels, including:

• Multi-drives
− Converter modules are arranged similarly to modern AC systems.
− Each main consumer is fed by a separate inverter unit.
• Distributed
− Each converter component is located as near as possible to the respective power source or load.
− All generated electric power is fed directly or via a rectifier into a common DC bus.
Below are examples of a multi-drive (Figure 2) and distributed (Figure 3) topologies.
Eng Eng Eng Eng
G G G G
AC AC AC AC
DC DC DC DC
DC Bus DC Bus
Switchboard
DC DC DC DC DC DC
AC AC AC AC AC AC
M M
AC Bus M M AC Bus
G Generator M Motor Eng Engine
Figure 2: DC Multi-Drive Topology.

DC SYSTEMS
Eng Eng Eng Eng
G G G G
AC AC AC AC
DC DC DC DC
DC Bus DC Bus
DC DC DC DC
AC AC AC AC
AC Bus M M AC Bus
DC DC
DC Bus DC Bus
M M
AC AC
Figure 3: DC Distributed Topology.
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS AND APPLICATIONS
New hybrid systems offer opportunities in renewable energy that could support a more environmentally
friendly approach to power distribution.
The ABS Guide for Direct Current Power Distribution Systems (DC) for Marine and Offshore Applications
provides practical steps to safer installation and integration of DC-power systems. It lays out the
requirements for their design, installation, testing and survey.
The Guide’s design requirements cover all major areas, including functionality, voltage variances, computer-
based systems, power quality, earthing, materials, clearance and creeping distances, and enclosures.
Integrating new technology with DC systems requires thorough risk assessments that identify technical risks
and the uncertainties associated with incorporation of power distribution and control system designs on a
vessel. Assessments should also demonstrate safe practice and the continuity of power supply if systems fail.
Growing demand for DC generation and power loads, new DC technology and the integration of AC and DC
distribution networks, is driving many projects to explore more efficient distribution systems.
Leading maritime players have received Approval in Principle (AIP) from ABS for new and innovative DC
power distribution systems, including the ABB-designed Onboard DC Grid.
IMPACT
With the IMO’s Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) mandating incremental improvements in the fuel
efficiency of ships to 2025, shipowners are exploring a wide range of technologies that will help them to
comply with the targets for each stage.
When integrated with new technologies such as ESS, fuel cells and dual-fuel electric power generators,
DC distribution has the potential to improve fuel efficiency and cost effectiveness and reduce emissions.
These benefits will reveal themselves in the operators' key performance indicators and in any performance-
monitoring and data-collection systems they install in their fleets as the industry moves towards
"smart" technology.

DC SYSTEMS
Conceptual Key One Line Diagram

DC Distribution System DC energy sources, including fuel cells and batteries,
Shore
Power can also be connected directly into the ship’s electrical
~ ~
( (
systems via power-electronic converters (PEC),
~ ~ ~
Fuel
�
Cells producing additional fuel savings.
� � � � There are several functional areas that can positively

influence the development and deployment of DC
power distribution systems and new technologies,
including:
� � � � � EQUIPMENT DESIGNS
~ ~ � ~ �
( It is theoretically possible to design a PEC to withstand
M M abnormal conditions (i.e., transient overvoltage and
DC overcurrent) from the DC bus without changes in its
(
Loads characteristics and functionalities.
ESS
PROTECTION SCHEMES AND

AC
Loads FAST-PROTECTIVE DEVICES
Figure 4: DC system on board a vessel
To verify the integrity, reliability and dependability of
DC systems and their components, research and development is likely to mature to accommodate short-circuit
protection, as well "selective" and "fast-protection" schemes.
MATURITY OF ONSHORE POWER
Portable equipment and alternative energy sources can be improved and leveraged to improve the reliability
of systems and their connections to onshore power.
DEVELOPMENTS FOR MARINE RULES, REGULATIONS, STANDARDS
Due to the different converter configurations used in DC distribution systems, the calculation methods for
short-circuits (e.g. simulations) are expected to continue to evolve and contribute to a deeper understanding of
their benefits.
Standards and guidelines, such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers' Recommended Practice
for 1kV to 35kV Medium-Voltage DC Power Systems on Ships, the International Electrotechnical Commission’s
Draft Technical Specification NP 63108, and the ABS Guide for Direct Current (DC) Power Distribution Systems
for Marine and Offshore Applications will continue to mature and be updated.
As the industry’s understanding of the technical, economic and environmental advantages that marine
applications of DC power distribution systems have over their AC counterparts grows, they are expected to play
significant role in helping owners to meet their emission-reduction goals.
CHALLENGES
The many advantages of DC systems have been discussed in this section. However, even though DC was the
first application of electricity, the return to DC applications and distribution is not without challenges.
DC systems have been used for many years in small applications (e.g. control and instrumentation systems)
and in high voltage transmission systems. However, the application of DC systems in power-distribution
systems for the marine industry is new; it is only in the past few years that full DC networks have been used in
small vessels. New systems require crew training, awareness, and familiarity. Also, the supporting components
do not have a long history of operations in marine environments.
These new systems also are being supported by relatively new components. This is the case for protective
devices such as fast DC-breakers, solid-state switches, etc. Operability, reliability and historic data for failure
rates may not be available for some of the technologies.
Additionally, the requirements and international standards are in development for marine use. Many are
the result of the transition from land-based standards and guidelines with adaptations for marine and
offshore applications.
GLOBAL TRADE AND ITS EFFECT
ON DECARBONIZATION OF SHIPPING
T
he adoption of the alternative fuels and novel power generation systems discussed in the previous
sections is expected to contribute significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from shipping and promote the sustainability of the marine environment. However, the composition
of the future fleet and by extension the fuels and technologies used in vessels will be shaped by the
evolution of global trade.
ABS has collaborated with Maritime Strategies International (MSI) to model and investigate the evolution
of global trade until 2050, to understand future ship demand for different commodities, and to calculate the
future fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from vessels.
This study is focused on five key vessel types that comprise the majority of the deep-sea fleet: (i) dry
bulk carriers, (ii) oil and chemical tankers, (iii) containerships, (iv) liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers,
and (v) liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) carriers. The results presented and conclusions drawn are based on
calculations for the selected fleet.
Typical
Total Total
Ship Type Size Ranges/Ship Class Emissions
Mn gt vessels
(gCO2/dwt/nm)
Dry Bulk
Carrier
(k dwt) 10-40 40-65 65-120 120+ 482 11,536 3-9
Oil and
Chemical 10-70 70-125 120-200 200+ 352 8,681 2.5-7.5
Tanker (k dwt)
Containerships
(k TEU) 0.1-1.3 1.3-2.9 2.9-3.9 3.9-5.2 5.2-7.6 7.6-12 12+ 246 5170 6-19
Steam Motor Gas
LNG Carriers D/TFDE 58 518 6-11
Turbine Diesel Injection
LPG Carriers
(k M3) 6-22 22-40 40+ 21 779 7-15
Other Ship
100+ 221 40,620 N/A
Types (gt)
Table 1: Key ship types and their size ranges, number of vessels, and typical CO2 emissions.
CARGO DEMAND AND FLEET EMISSIONS
To calculate future emissions from shipping in conjunction with cargo demand, this study incorporates a
potential change to the marine fuels used to achieve the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) goals
by 2050 of a 50 percent reduction in absolute CO2 emissions and a 70 percent reduction in CO2 per transport
work done (a measure of carbon intensity).
For both targets, the reference point for the reduction has been set as 2008. In that year, total emissions
were estimated in the third International Maritime Organization (IMO) GHG study at 921 MnT from all
international shipping. An estimate of transport work done does not appear to have been officially adopted,
but a figure for the global fleet of 22 gCO2/dwt-nm has been quoted in the Poseidon Principles documents,
which are being used to create a framework for responsible ship financing. This appears to be derived
from the total CO2 emissions and data for total cargo tonne nautical miles published by the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
Two cases were considered: (i) a base scenario that follows the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) stated
policies, and (ii) an Accelerated Climate Action (ACA) scenario that follows the IEA Sustainable Development
actions. Both cases are informed by projections made or commissioned by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) and have been projected to 2050.

GLOBAL TRADE AND ITS EFFECT ON DECARBONIZATION OF SHIPPING
These scenarios consider how the supply and demand for key commodities (iron ore, coal, minor bulks,
crude oil, refined products, chemicals, edible oils, LPG and LNG) and containerized goods will drive global
trade until 2050. The forecasts incorporate explicit views on global economic growth, demographics, social
factors, and energy intensity.
The following sections focus on the five key ship types that account for the majority of commodity and
manufactured goods shipments (Table 1). According to the third IMO GHG study these ship types accounted
for 623 MnT (68 percent of total global emissions) in 2008; it is estimated that this proportion remained the
same in 2020.
BULK CARRIERS
Although global steel production is projected to be at or near its peak, the seaborne trade of iron ore is
not expected to peak until 2022-2023, as imports continue to displace lower grade domestic ore in China.
However, a number of structural changes are foreseen in the global iron ore market, primarily related to
China’s economy.
First, the substitution of Chinese domestic ore with imports is projected to be approaching a peak, limiting
the potential growth for iron ore imports. Second, China’s steel consumption is reaching maturity, and a
gradual decline in the country’s steel output is forecast as the economy evolves further.
Third, the use of steel scrap in electric arc furnace (EAF) steel production is expected to increase, partially
displacing iron ore and imports of coking coal. Since its ascension to the World Trade Organization (WTO)
in late 2001, China has seen a fivefold increase in steel consumption as consumer demand for white goods
and vehicles increased rapidly. For example, between 2002 and 2019, over 280 million light vehicles were sold
in China. This has led to the systematic collection and recycling of steel in recent years.
Mn T
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
RoW Australia Brazil
Figure 1: Iron ore exports from Australia, Brazil, and the rest of the world (RoW).
As a consequence, the global seaborne trade in iron ore is forecast to fall to 900 MnT per annum by 2050,
from a peak of 1,600 MnT in 2022-2023.
Under the ACA scenario, the combination of lower steel consumption and greater use of EAF in the steel-
production process will further impact the seaborne ore trade, which is expected to decline by an additional
115 MnT by 2050, relative to the base case.
The main influence on the performance of the capesize sector is expected to come from the decline in ore
shipments to 2050; this is reflected in the CO2 emissions of this segment.

Mn T
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Base Scenario
Figure 2: Iron ore seaborne trade.
In contrast to the gradual decline in iron ore shipments that underpins the long-term forecast, the seaborne
trade of coal is forecast to continue to expand until 2050 supported by Asian growth in coal-fired power-
generating capacity. Australia and Indonesia currently account for approximately 60 percent of global
exports and are expected to maintain a leading position in the Pacific basin coal market.
However, as highlighted in the preceding section, coal is the power source most at risk from heightened
action on climate change, as countries switch away from coal-fired power to reduce emissions and improve
air quality. The use of coking coal in steel production is also threatened by greater use of EAF in the
production process, in addition to declines in steel output.

Mn T
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
RoW Australia Indonesia
Figure 3: Coal ore exports from Australia, Indonesia and the RoW.
Under the ACA scenario, by 2050 the seaborne trade in coal is expected to have declined by almost 50 percent
relative to the base case forecast. Whereas China is already targeting reductions in coal use to improve air
quality, the transition will be slower in other parts of Asia (such as India), where long-term commitments to
coal-fired power will support continued imports.
Mn T
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Base Scenario
Figure 4: Coal seaborne trade.

Mn T
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
3039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
10–40k dwt 40–65k dwt 65–120k dwt 120+k dwt
Figure 5: Bulk carrier CO2 emissions by vessel size (base case).
The bulk carrier fleet (10k dwt and above) emitted just over 180 MnT of CO2 in 2019. As shown in Figure 6,
if the fuel mix remains unchanged from 2019 (when it was dominated by HFO/MGO/MDO), there will be a
marginal reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. However, a gradual transition to lower carbon fuels (such as
LNG, LPG, methanol and biofuels) and zero-carbon fuels (ammonia and hydrogen) underpins the projection
of a 41 percent reduction in CO2 emissions to 107 MnT by 2050, compared to 2019 levels.
The biggest reductions are forecast for the capesize segment, where structural changes to the iron-ore
market are expected to drive an overall decline in trade, thus negatively impacting the size of the
required fleet.
In addition, more negative adjustments to the dry bulk trades are expected if actions geared towards
reducing global carbon emissions continue to gain momentum. Under the ACA scenario, downward
adjustments to the seaborne trade of coal, and to a lesser extent iron ore, will further reduce the size of
the required bulk carrier fleet. These changes result in additional savings of 16 MnT of CO2, with emissions
falling to 91 MnT by 2050, or 50 percent below 2019 levels.

Mn T CO2
200
Base Case Decarbonization Pathway to 2050
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2019 2050 Low Zero 2019 Accelerated 2050
(Unchanged Carbon Carbon (Base Climate Alternative
Fuel Mix) Fuels Fuels Case) Action Scenario
Figure 6: Bulk carrier pathway to decarbonization.
OIL AND CHEMICAL TANKERS
Long-term demand for oil is dependent on the evolution of transportation technology, predominantly
with regard to road transport. Assuming demand for transportation continues to grow with demographic
and economic expansion, oil demand will be mostly determined by the increase in efficiency of the global
vehicle fleet — using either internal combustion engines or hybrid technology — and the pace of the
transition towards electrification.
Global oil consumption is expected to peak in the next 15–20 years, and to gradually decrease thereafter. Any
growth in consumption will continue to be driven by non-OECD regions, in particular Asia, where economic
growth rates have been high and vehicle ownership rates are low.
In contrast, oil demand in Europe and North America is projected to decline over the next 10 years. As the
electrification of the personal vehicle fleet grows, the proportion of oil demand driven by freight transport,
aviation and petrochemicals is expected to increase.

Mn T
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
L. America Africa/M. East Europe/F.S.U. N. America Asia Pacific
Figure 7: Oil refinery throughput by region.
Although the seaborne trade of crude oil is forecast to remain comfortably above 2 BnT per annum over the
forecast horizon, the ACA scenario envisions that oil consumption will fall by almost 50 percent between
2020 and 2050.
Global refining capacity is expected to lag behind the slowdown in demand, due to the long lead times for
new projects coming onstream in the Middle East and Asia, and the long-term economic considerations
that influence decisions to reduce capacity. Non-energy demand — petrochemical feedstocks, for example
— will also support refining activity. As the decline in oil demand becomes entrenched, the deteriorating
commercial viability of refining is expected to drive a rapid consolidation of capacity in this sector.
Refining capacity is expected to see the largest decline in regions with older infrastructure and lower oil
production bases, notably Europe, which will support product imports. The dislocation between points
of refining supply and demand is likely to increase as refining capacity is retained in areas with easily
accessible local crude production, and/or more resilient oil demand.
Exports of oil products from Europe will fall significantly as its refining capacity declines. The Middle East
and North America are expected to have an increasing proportion of the trade moving out as
refined products.

Mn T
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Base Scenario
Figure 8: Crude oil seaborne trade.
Under the ACA scenario, the seaborne trade of oil products is expected to decline by just under 40 percent
between 2020 and 2050. In contrast to the crude market, oil products may be partially protected from the
downturn by the ongoing trend for traditional crude oil exporters such as the Middle East to invest in
refining capacity. This would help them to diversify away from crude exports towards higher value, refined
petroleum products and petrochemicals.
Mn T
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Base Scenario
Figure 9: Oil products seaborne trade.

The base case shows a long-term decline in growth as an increase in Chinese chemical capacity reduces
imports of organic chemicals, which in turn will decrease the related traded in the next 10 years. After that,
increased demand for organic chemicals in developing countries is expected to expand the trade in the
longer term.
After a surge in edible oil imports in the last 10 years, long-term growth is expected to remain fairly slow
as countries within Europe, for example, investigate alternative sources for biofuel, one of edible oil’s
biggest uses. Furthermore, key producers of edible oils, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil, are making
efforts to increase local demand by increasing the bio-derived content in the fuel, thus further limiting the
growth. However, growth is expected to continue, as it remains a key product for other industries such as
pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and food.
Demand for inorganic chemicals is expected to remain strong in the long term, as they will continue to
be used in mining, metal processing and other key industries where production benefits from growing
populations and economies. However, this is not expected to cause significant growth in demand for
chemical tankers in the long-term.
Mn T
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Edible Oil Inorganic Chemicals Organic Chemicals
Figure 10: Chemical products seaborne trade.
The combined oil and chemical tanker fleet (10k dwt and above) emitted 114 MnT of CO2 in 2019. If the
fuel mix remains unchanged from 2019 (dominated by HFO/MGO/MDO), CO2 emissions will increase by 25
percent to 143 MnT by 2050. However, a gradual transition to low-carbon fuels (such as LNG, LPG, methanol
and biofuels) and zero-carbon fuels (ammonia and hydrogen) could reduce CO2 emissions by 25 percent to
86 MnT by 2050, compared to 2019 levels.
Given the more favorable outlook for the trade in refined oil products, product tankers are expected to
have the lowest reduction in CO2. However, further negative adjustments to the tanker trade are expected if
actions geared towards reducing global carbon emissions continue to gain momentum.
Under the ACA scenario, downward adjustments to the seaborne trade of crude oil and refined oil products
could further reduce the size of the tanker fleet. These changes could result in additional savings of 35 MnT
of CO2 with emissions being reduced to 50 MnT by 2050, or 56 percent below 2019 levels.

Mn T
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
3039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
10–70k dwt 70-125k dwt 125-200k dwt 200+k dwt
Figure 11: Tanker CO2 emissions by vessel size (base case).
Mn T CO2
160
Base Case Decarbonization Effect
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2019 2050 Lower Zero 2019 Accelerated 2050
Figure 12: Tanker pathways to decarbonization.

CONTAINERSHIPS
Increasingly, the sources of growth in the container trades will come from emerging economies,
predominantly in East Asia, as China becomes a larger importer of consumer goods. Given the geography of
global manufacturing, these new sources of demand will offer lower "TEU miles" than the current long-haul
trades that connect the Far East with Europe and North America.
Under the base case, containerized trade is expected to see a compound annual growth rate of 3.4 percent
until 2050. In contrast to the bulk carrier and tanker sectors, the role of containerships in transporting
energy-related commodities is small; tank containers account for a minor share of containerized trade.
However, as the primary mode of transport for finished and semi-finished manufactured goods, the
containership sector is the trade most directly exposed to consumer behavior.
The ACA scenario assumes that climate-conscious consumers will move away from today’s disposable single-
use model towards a more sustainable behavior. As radical changes in consumer technology become less
frequent, the technology replacement cycle is expected to increase, thus slowing containerized trade from
2030 onwards.
This trend may be reinforced by increased consumer pressure on manufacturers to reduce their carbon
footprints, thus driving the development of greener supply chains and a partial reshoring of manufacturing.
Mn TEU
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Other Intra-Regional Intra-Asia North-South Non-Mainlane East-West Mainlanes
Figure 13: Global container trade evolution.
The containership fleet (100 TEU and above) emitted 215 MnT of CO2 in 2019. If the fuel mix remains
unchanged from 2019 (dominated by HFO/MGO/MDO), CO2 emissions will increase by 63 percent to over 350
MnT by 2050. However, a gradual transition to low-carbon and zero-carbon fuels is expected to reduce CO2
emissions by six percent, to 202 MnT, by 2050, compared to 2019 levels.
With fleet expansion firmly focused on very large containerships, this is the sector that exhibits the fastest
growth in emissions under the base case.
Under the ACA scenario, there is slower growth in containerized trade, particularly from 2030 onwards,
which is expected to yield additional savings in CO2 emissions. These savings forecast an additional
reduction of 76 MnT of CO2 to 126 MnT by 2050, or 42 percent below 2019 levels.

Mn T
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
3039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
0.1–2.9k TEU 2.9–5.2k TEU 5.2–12k TEU 12+k TEU
Figure 14: Containership CO2 emissions by vessel size (base case).
Mn T CO2
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Figure 15: Containership pathways to decarbonization.

LNG CARRIERS
Natural gas is currently used as an alternative to coal and oil for electricity generation, distributed power,
and transportation. The dislocation between the centers of supply and demand is expected to continue to
boost the LNG trade and vessel requirements; pipelines are generally considered not to be economical over
distances greater than 3,500 kilometers.
The largest gas-consuming markets are the U.S., Russia and China. All three have large-scale production
volumes and pipeline networks to transport gas to the consuming regions. China is one of the fastest
growing gas markets, as it turns to cleaner burning fuels reduce pollution and emissions within major
urban centers. Demand for LNG is expected to be positive for most of the forecast period and China is
expected to become the largest LNG importer.
The largest gas reserves are located within Russia, Iran and Qatar. The largest LNG producer is Qatar,
followed by Australia and Malaysia. U.S. gas production is experiencing a significant increase as new
extraction techniques (fracking) have enabled excess gas to be liquefied and exported as LNG.
Under the base case, global gas consumption is expected to peak in 2040 at just under 4 BnT, a gain of
approximately 40 percent on 2019 levels, before gradually declining as the overall use of fossil fuels falls.
LNG is expected to grow even faster over the period to 2040 (+86 percent), supported by strong demand and
increased capacity to export it.
Under the ACA scenario, the gas market is expected to peak earlier, and at a lower level.
Bn T
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Other Asia China India ME/Africa Eurasia Americas
Figure 16: Natural gas consumption by region.

Mn T
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Figure 17: LNG imports by region.
The dedicated LNG-carrier fleet consumed far more LNG as fuel than all other ship types combined in 2019.
The latter is currently estimated to have consumed less than one MnT, compared with the 15 MnT used
in LNG carriers.
The LNG-carrier fleet accounts for five percent of the total fleet considered in this analysis in terms
of aggregate gross tonnage. However, it accounts for approximately nine percent of current total fuel
consumption in HFO-equivalent terms.
The LNG-carrier fleet (50k M3 and above) emitted 40.3 MnT of CO2 in 2019. If the fuel mix remains unchanged
from 2019, CO2 emissions will increase by 29 percent to 52 MnT by 2050. In contrast to other sectors, the
fuel mix for the LNG-carrier fleet is already dominated by LNG. However, zero-carbon fuels (ammonia
and hydrogen) are the most likely pathway to 2050 for the sector, potentially reducing CO2 emissions by 16
percent to 34 MnT by 2050, compared to 2019 levels.
Under the ACA scenario, downward adjustments to LNG trade are expected to lower the size of the fleet
of its dedicated carriers. These changes can result in additional savings of 7.3 MnT of CO2 with emissions
reduced to 26.6 MnT by 2050, 34 percent below 2019 levels.

Mn T
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
3039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
Motor Diesel DFDE Gas Injection Steam Turbine
Figure 18: LNG-carrier CO2 emissions by vessel type (base case).
Mn T CO2
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2019 2050 Zero 2050 Accelerated 2050
(Unchanged Carbon (Base Climate Alternative
Fuel Mix) Fuels Case) Action Scenario
Figure 19: LNG-carrier pathways to decarbonization.

LPG CARRIERS
LPG is produced as a byproduct of oil and gas production, and oil refining. Therefore, production and
consumption of LPG are ultimately constrained by activity in those sectors. In the absence of explicit
forward views on LPG within the IPCC and IEA scenarios, the ACA scenario for LPG has been linked to the oil
and gas scenarios outlined in the previous sections.
Exports of LPG are closely aligned with the regions that account for the majority share of oil and gas
production. U.S. shale gas is currently driving a large increase in exports from North America, although this
is expected to plateau towards 2035. The Middle East and Africa are likely to remain important suppliers
of LPG, but output ultimately may decline in line with trends in oil and gas production. The pattern of
importers is relatively diverse, with China being the dominant country.
Under the base case, LPG production and consumption are expected to peak around 2035, thereafter
remaining relatively flat until 2040, before gradually declining in line with the projections for oil and
gas markets.
Under the ACA scenario, the market is expected to peak 10 years earlier and at a lower level. In this case,
the most significant reductions in LPG output would be in regions with limited oil and gas production
and a greater focus on refinery output. This would impact Eurasian production the most, while high gas
production would dampen the impact on the Middle East and North America.
Mn T
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Figure 20: LPG production by region.

Mn T
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Figure 21: LPG imports by region.
The LPG-carrier fleet (6k M3 and above) emitted 14.6 MnT of CO2 in 2019. If the fuel mix remains unchanged
from 2019 (dominated by HFO/MGO/MDO), CO2 emissions will increase by 12 percent to 16.4 MnT by 2050.
However, a gradual transition to zero-carbon fuels could see CO2 emissions fall by 30 percent to 10.2 MnT by
2050, compared to 2019 levels. Because the prospects for the LPG sector are closely linked to those of the oil
and natural gas sectors, lower consumption of fossil fuels will have a negative impact on the LPG market.
Under the ACA scenario, reductions to the seaborne trade of LPG are expected to lower the size of LPG-
carrier fleet. These changes could result in additional savings of 3.8 MnT of CO2 with emissions dropping to
6.4 MnT by 2050, 56 percent below 2019 levels.

Mn T
18
16
14
12
10
0
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
3039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
6–22k M3 22–40k M3 40+k M3
Figure 22: LPG carrier CO2 emissions by vessel size (base case).
Mn T CO2
18
16
14
12
10
0
Figure 23: LPG carrier pathway to decarbonization.

FORECAST OF FLEET GROWTH AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL ADOPTION
The evolution of marine fuel use is dependent upon multiple factors associated with the fuels' carbon
footprints, the technology of power generation and propulsion systems, the production, distribution, storage
and bunkering infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, and the value proposition of each fuel.
The following figure shows the projected marine fuel use until 2050 as the industry strives to meet the GHG
emissions-reduction targets mandated by the IMO.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
Ammonia/Hydrogen Biofuels Methanol LPG LNG Oil Based
Figure 24: Projected marine fuel use to 2050.
Oil-based fuels currently dominate all other fuels used in vessels, but they are projected to decrease in fairly
linear fashion until 2050. Current vessels retrofitted with scrubber systems are expected to phase out in 2040,
considering a 20-year service lifetime, and end the use of HFO.
Beyond 2040, MGO/MDO are expected to be the only oil-based fuels used for propulsion. Along this path, the
adoption of biodiesel or renewable diesel is expected to displace part of the HFO and MGO/MDO share.
The use of LNG is expected to increase until 2035, based on its expanding infrastructure, trade volumes and
lower carbon intensity than oil-based fuels. However, the adoption of LNG is not sufficient to meet the long-
term IMO targets, therefore it is expected that it will be replaced by bio-derived natural gas and, eventually,
by hydrogen.
The use of LPG and methanol is supported by their use as cargo in tankers and the development of
dedicated propulsion systems, such as the MAN ME-LGIP/M engines. It is expected that tankers carrying
LPG and methanol as cargo will continue to use them as fuel for propulsion and power generation. Both are
expected to continue to be used in the future, but methanol has greater potential to reduce the life-cycle
carbon emissions from shipping because it can be produced renewably.
The use of ammonia as a fuel is expected to grow due to its zero-carbon content, easier distribution, storage
and bunkering compared to hydrogen, and its suitability with existing and emerging technologies for
propulsion and power generation.

Bn T
18
16
14
12
10
0
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Liquid Chemicals LPG LNG Containerized Oil Products

Crude Oil Minor Bulk Grain/Soya Coal Iron Ore
Figure 25: Trade growth by key commodity.
Based on the projections for trade growth presented in the previous sections, Figure 25 (above) shows
the trade growth by key commodity until 2050, while Figure 26 (below) shows the corresponding fleet
composition. It is interesting to note that containerized and minor bulk trade account for the strongest
growth until 2050. Accordingly, containerships are expected to have the highest growth in the aggregate
fleet size.
Mn dwt
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
LPG LNG Tankers Containers Bulkers
Figure 26: Projected fleet composition.

Based on the projected fleet, the fuel consumption by ship type was calculated and is shown in Figure 27
(below). The share of fuels in shipping is illustrated by restating energy consumed in terms of tonnes of
HFO equivalent.
Under the base case, the total energy consumed by shipping is expected to continue to rise to 254 MnT HFO
equivalent in 2050. This is driven by the containerships and, to a much lesser extent, LNG carriers.
The significant demand for LNG is largely provided by the use of the LNG cargo as a fuel on its dedicated
carriers. Demand for LNG bunkers for other ship types is expected to rise from very low current levels to
a peak of 25 MnT (approximately 10 percent of total demand). The share of ammonia and hydrogen is
expected to increase, as they will largely contribute to the CO2 reduction from shipping in the long term.
Mn T HFO Equiv
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
LPG LNG Tankers Containers Bulkers
Figure 27: Fuel consumption by ship type.
According to the projected fuel consumption, the calculated CO2 emissions are shown in the following
figure. Under the base case, a marked reduction in CO2 emissions is expected due to the increased share
of zero-carbon fuels, more than offsetting the steady increase in the size of the fleet and rising energy
consumption. This trend is most apparent for the containership sector.
Nevertheless, under the base case, by 2050 containerships are expected to account for 46 percent of all
emissions for the five ship types included in this study, which is an increase of 38 percent compared to 2019.
However, under the ACA scenario, the relative share of the fleet by sector changes, thus the containerships
share of emissions is lower (41 percent). In contrast, the share of emissions accounted for by dry bulk carriers
is significantly higher at 30 percent, compared with 24 percent in the base case.

Mn T CO2
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
Base
Scenario
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
LPG LNG Tanker Container Bulker
Figure 28: CO2 emissions by ship type.
SECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the data presented above for each vessel segment, the following figure shows the aggregate CO2
emissions for all five segments included in this study. The effect of adopting low- and zero-carbon fuels is
shown, as is the impact of the ACA scenario.
Mn T CO2
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Figure 29: Key vessel segments pathways to decarbonization.

The following figure shows the trajectory for emissions in terms of grams of CO2 emitted per dwt-tonne
mile (g/dwt-nm) traveled. This is the measure of efficiency that the IMO will use to drive the target of a 50
percent reduction in absolute CO2 emissions from shipping in the period to 2050, when compared to the
reference year of 2008. To achieve this 50 percent reduction, it is assumed that emissions in g/dwt-nm will
need to be reduced by 70 percent compared to 2008 levels.
CO2 g/dwt/nm
25
20
15
10
0
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
Poseidon Principles MSI Base 70% Reduction Target
Figure 30: CO2 emissions per transport work vs. IMO trajectory.
Decarbonization of the economy is likely to lead to profound changes in the volume and pattern of trade in
the full range of commodities transported by sea over the next 30 years. These changes will affect the fleet
evolution across the shipping spectrum, and reduce the aggregate fleet size in some sectors by 2050.
While low-carbon fuels (LNG, LPG, methanol) can assume a significant role in the near term, the adoption
of zero-carbon fuels must begin in earnest before the end of the current decade. It has yet to become clear
what the carbon footprint of biofuels and synthetic fuels will be, and how this could be measured in a
standardized manner.
The projected marine fuel use could help the shipping industry meet the target to reduce by 70 percent CO2
emissions per transport work (gCO2/dwt/nm) by 2050.
However, the 50 percent absolute reduction in CO2 emissions (ton) over the same timeframe will require
additional measures, such as: (i) reducing the share of oil-based fuels by 2050 below the 40 percent
level projected in this study through greater adoption of low and zero-carbon fuels; and (ii) the broader
decarbonization of the global economy as captured by the ACA scenario.
The latter can contribute to the reduction in seaborne transportation of carbon-based fuels, by reducing the
required fleet and by extension the absolute CO2 emissions.

JUST-IN-TIME AND
OPTIMUM SHIP ROUTING
M
any options are available to the shipowner or operator for achieving compliance with the
International Maritime Organization's (IMO) regulations, whether it is using low- and zero-carbon
fuels or using innovative technologies for improving the energy efficiency of vessels. Other options,
which can be combined with the above, are operational procedures such as speed optimization and just-in-
time (JIT) scheduling34.
THE CASE FOR JIT SHIPPING
The definition of JIT originates from the automotive industry. The concept originated in Japan, developed
during the 1960s and 1970s, championed by Toyota and based on an inventory system that aligned orders of
raw materials from suppliers directly with production schedules.
Companies employed this strategy to increase efficiency and decrease waste by receiving goods only as they
need them for the production process, which reduced inventory and inventory-depreciation costs.
It required producers to forecast demand accurately and modernized "just-in-case" strategies, wherein
producers held sufficient inventories to absorb maximum market demand.
The aviation industry also adopted JIT, although its focus was on operational processes, rather than
manufacturing. Today most airlines and airports are involved in a symbiotic collaboration that, through
JIT, aims to minimize the time airplanes spend on land or waiting to land, thus avoiding passenger waiting
times, maximizing the use of aviation assets, and lowering fuel consumption and emissions.
The shipping industry can significantly benefit from the efficiency of JIT. Recent reports by Marine Traffic,
a leading provider of ship tracking and maritime intelligence services, indicate that ships spend roughly 50
percent of their time in berth, anchoring or maneuvering; this accounts for more than 15 percent of their
annual fuel consumption.
Adoption of JIT operations would reduce the time spent waiting for berths or trade, maximize the
utilization of ports and reduce the fuel costs and others associated with port stays. Moreover, it would
substantially reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other gases.
Key agents of the shipping industry have identified JIT arrival as an operational improvement that could
generate wide benefits by reducing the GHG emissions from vessels when they approach and berth at ports.
JIT operations limit the amount of time that ships spend idling outside the ports. This can be achieved
by optimizing the vessel speed during the voyage to ensure that it arrives and departs without
unnecessary delays.
Implementing the JIT arrival concept requires a holistic view of the voyage, including the port operations
section of the voyage, because it may require occasional increases in vessel speed during the voyage (with
the associated increase in fuel consumption). This negates enough of the waiting time at port that may
result in lower overall fuel consumption.
ETA
ETA
Waiting time Anchorage Waiting time

during navigation time until departure
Figure 1: Normal arrival process.

JUST-IN-TIME AND OPTIMUM SHIP ROUTING
RTA (Recommended Time of Arrival)

New ETA
RTA
ETA
ETA
Speed Reduced Reduced Waiting time

adjustment waiting anchorage until
time during time departure
navigation
Figure 2: JIT arrival process.
BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
Despite its theoretical benefits, JIT has yet to be widely adopted by shipping or the port sector. Their
practitioners agree that JIT would lessen their businesses' impact on the environment and can reduce costs,
but there are multiple operational and contractual barriers to overcome.
A full implementation of JIT sailing implies a commitment between ships and ports, and the related agents
(shipping companies, cargo owners, port authorities, terminal operators, nautical service providers, etc.). The
ship must adhere to estimated times of arrival (ETA) and the port must ensure that the resources for the
ship berth are available at that time.
Modern vessels use various services to estimate the time it will take to reach a destination, taking into
account aspects such as weather conditions. These estimations are not without challenges.
Ship operators face problems such as the nondisclosure of information related to the vessel’s construction
or its engine performance that would improve the accuracy of estimations and any efforts to calculate and
optimize the associated fuel consumption or GHG emissions.
Without this information, mathematical modeling or the creation of "digital twins" — virtual replicas of
physical assets, processes and systems — for ships can be a challenge, thus complicating the task of providing
an accurate ETA.
For some types of vessels — such as tankers and bulk carriers — contracts may be breached by reducing speed,
which renders JIT arrivals impossible. Communication with charterers and a commitment to reducing GHG
emissions from them is a prerequisite to JIT and optimum ship routing (OSR).
AT PORTS
The barriers to JIT at ports are equally numerous. Few ports have adequate management systems to
estimate the resources (e.g. pilots, tugs or mooring) that will be available beyond a 24–48-hour horizon.
A standardization of the format for the information is required for automation and further optimization
to be possible.
In addition, the concept of JIT involves adapting the freight contract to allow the ship to reduce its speed
on passage to meet the scheduled arrival time. JIT adoption requires cooperation between the shipowner/
operator and the charterer to overcome third-party contractual obligations, and to provide benefits that go
beyond emission reductions and fuel savings, and extend to voyage planning.
A commitment between ports, ships, manufacturers and other industry agents is required to make JIT
sailing possible.

Border Port Customs Freight Exporter/

Guard Office Authority Forwarder Importer
Shipping Companies Shipping Information Flow

Ship Operators Agent
Traffic Port Port
Control Terminal
Cargo Flow
Harbor
Master
Hinterland Shipper/
Nautical Transport Consignee
Service
Providers
Figure 3: Different partners involved in a JIT operation.
CURRENT JIT INITIATIVES
The European Commission (EC) and the governments of South Korea — as well as several port authorities
such as Rotterdam, Valencia and Algeciras — are funding initiatives to improve synchronization of port calls
and voyage planning, the enablers for JIT in shipping.
These initiatives include the Sea Traffic Management (STM) Program and its related EU co-funded research
and development projects (the STM Validation project, Efficient Flow and Real Time Ferries). There are also
initiatives such as the PRONTO project promoted by the Port of Rotterdam and the Pit Stop Operations
project developed by the Port of Algeciras.
The STM project is one of the largest e-navigation projects funded by the EC and it aims to validate the
technical, environmental and financial feasibility of the concept by testing new navigation services on
board 300 ships in collaboration with ECDIS3 suppliers.
The services allow digital transmission of voyage plans and connectivity between these ships, ports and
shore centers through large-scale testbeds in the Baltic and Mediterranean Seas. More than 50 partners from
13 countries are participating.
For ports, the STM Validation initiative is working on an ambitious set of pilots involving several ports in
Europe: Gothenburg, Valencia, Stavanger, Barcelona and Limassol, among others. The pilots are oriented to
increase the efficiency of coordination of the agents involved in the port-call process by defining a common
communication standard that allows them to exchange information in real time. This enables the agents to
share the various stages and operations related to the port call and receive timestamps in real time.
JIT’S IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY’S CARBON FOOTPRINT
ABS collaborated with Maritime Strategies International (MSI) to assess the potential impact of JIT on the
industry’s carbon footprint.
As a base case, MSI assumed the following compound annual growth rates for each of the major vessel types
during the period 2019-2030:
• 0.9 percent for dry bulk
• 0.9 percent for oil tankers
• 3.9 percent for containerships
For several years, the use of data from automated identification systems has made it possible for the
industry to operationally benefit from knowing details such as the ETA, the arrival port, draught and
navigational speeds, etc.
These data points are being used today to track vessels and to support limited adjustments to voyage
planning. However, deeper analyses of the data on vessel positions and berth availability are revealing the
type of information that could make JIT shipping more probable.
More efficient communications between vessels and ports on the availability of berths and ancillary-
service providers such as tug operators would optimize marine traffic, with all the commercial and
environmental benefits.
MSI modeled the effect of potential improvements in efficiency created by JIT shipping by presuming an
average five percent reduction in speed, assuming no impact on cargo-carrying capacity and no adjustment to
the size of the fleet. Based on this analysis, the CO2 emissions savings are around 10–11 percent annually.
CO2 Emissions – Just-in-Time vs. MSI Base

BULK CARRIER TANKER CONTAINERSHIP
Mn T Mn T Mn T
200 200 300
180 180
160 160 250
140 140 200
120 120
100 100 150
80 80
60 60 100
40 40 50
20 20
0 0 0
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Just-in-Time MSI Base Case
Figure 4: Potential reduction of emissions with JIT.
Speed optimization involves varying the vessel speed to arrive "just in time", thus avoiding idle time outside
the terminals and minimizing overall fuel consumption. These are both used in OSR, the method of
developing the “best route” for a ship based on weather forecasts, ship characteristics, and geographical data.
Invariably, these are subjected to targets and constraints, such as:
• JIT arrival
• Minimum voyage fuel consumption
• Maximum daily fuel consumption
• Maximum time charter equivalent (TCE)
• Bathymetry
• Land proximity
• Maximum speed for safety and sickness motion
• Maximum and minimum speeds imposed by authorities
• Minimum speed for safety
• Slamming
• Operation outside the barred speed range
• Operation within the engine envelope
• Avoidance of specifics areas
THE CASE FOR OSR
With so many variables and constraints, it is reasonable to question what can be dependably achieved.
The "best route" is selected based on time, fuel consumption, safety aspects, crew and passenger comfort,
financial cost, or any combination of the above.
Fuel costs constitute a major part of the operating expenses of any voyage; in some cases, it comprises up to
80 percent. With an eye on the IMO’s goals, minimizing fuel consumption also has a positive impact on the
environment because GHG emissions are reduced proportionately to the reduction in fuel consumption.
METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING THE OPTIMAL ROUTE
The most common route followed by vessels is the one that connects the departure and arrival points
through a straight line (loxodrome). Under ideal conditions, this route would offer the shortest travel
distance and time, with the lowest fuel consumption. However, weather conditions, geography and other
factors may necessitate a different route to minimize fuel consumption. Identifying this route involves an
optimization task using a numerical algorithm.

As a first step, the operator needs to provide a set of inputs to the algorithm: the departure and arrival
points, the geographical data and the weather data. Based on these inputs, the algorithm approximates every
possible route as a mathematical function, as well as the associated fuel consumption with every route.
JIT can be implemented on a single trip by changing the objective of this optimization task from the total
fuel consumption to the total TCE for a voyage and then minimizing it.
CALM WATER ROUTING
The simplest case for applying this optimization method is a ship traveling at constant speed in calm
water without any effects from waves. In this case, the water resistance remains constant and the route of
minimum fuel consumption is equivalent to the shortest distance on the globe.
Figure 5 shows representative results from applying this method, where the numerical solution (shown in
cross symbols) matches the geodesic (solid blue line, orthodrome). The loxodrome (white dashed line) is also
shown as a reference for comparing the two solutions.
4500
38
4000
37 3500
36 3000
Latitude
35 2500
34 2000
1500
33
1000
32
500
31
15 20 25 30
Longitude
Figure 5: Application of the route optimization method on a clam water case.

Bathymetric data are shown by the color contour.
APPLICATION TO AN AFRAMAX VOYAGE
Consider the case of a typical 105,000 dwt aframax tanker traveling in the eastern Mediterranean Sea,
from Port Said to Marseille via Sicily in the presence of a storm. Data is available from seakeeping
calculations for the hull, general arrangement, main engine, and ship performance at various speeds, drafts,
and weather conditions.
The principal particulars of the vessel are LOA = 238.5 m (overall length), LPB = 234 m (length between
perpendiculars), B = 42 m (max breadth) and Ts = 14.9 m (scantling draft). The vessel is equipped with one
MAN B&W 6S60MC diesel engine directly coupled to the propeller.
The optimization objective is to minimize the vessel’s fuel consumption as it travels through the storm
and the results are shown in the following figures (Figure 6). The color contour in each plot shows the
sea severity (wave height) and the cross symbols show the calculated optimum route as compared to the
loxodrome (dashed line) and the orthodrome (solid line). In this case, using the optimized route results in
the minimum fuel consumption; the calculated cost of this route is two percent lower than the orthodrome.

Time Since Departure: 2.5 Hours
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
Latitude
30
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30

38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
15 20 25 30 35
Longitude
Figure 6: Calculation of optimal ship route in the case of a storm in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
The application of JIT and OTR are two effective operational measures that can contribute significantly to
the reduction of fuel consumption and carbon emissions from future vessels. Such operational measures
combined with low- and zero-carbon fuels and technological advancements can provide cost-effective
solutions that help vessels to meet the decarbonization target of IMO to 2030 and 2050.

© Iam_Anupong/Shutterstock
FINDING A COMPANY PATHWAY

TOWARDS DECARBONIZATION
W
hile the 2018 targets represented a broad IMO consensus of what was achievable and an effective
way to lessen the industry’s collective environmental footprint, how to achieve them was left up
to individual owners, who are now faced with the extraordinarily complex task of decarbonizing
their fleets, one ship
at a time.
The present pathways towards the 2030 targets and beyond include operational measures, new technologies
designed to improve energy efficiency, or alternative fuels. With so many combinations of options
on the table — and more certain to emerge in the next few years — devising a sustainable fleet-wide
decarbonization strategy that meets company goals is complex; more so, when each ship requires a bespoke
solution that fits its age and operating profile, etc.
As with most efforts to improve technical and operational processes, it is important to establish a
performance baseline for each specific ship and to benchmark that against the targets. Benchmarking is
no longer seen by leading shipping companies as an optional management tool; it as an essential way to
monitor competitiveness and evaluate progress in a dynamic environment.

FINDING A COMPANY PATHWAY TOWARDS DECARBONIZATION
As the deadlines for compliance with the IMO’s emissions targets draw nearer, a key focus for benchmarking
efforts will be carbon-intensity, the volume of CO2 emissions per unit of transport work. Once the company
ship/fleet benchmark is established, its trajectory under various scenarios can be compared to the trajectory
established for the Poseidon Principles, a set of goals created to help financial institutions align their
ship portfolios with responsible environmental behavior, and which are consistent with the policies and
ambitions of the IMO.
The chart below shows how the projected performance of a theoretical fleet of 10 panamax bulk carriers
built in 2010 (prior to agreement of the IMO’s Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)) and can be tracked
against the IMO’s 2030 GHG goal, as adopted by the Poseidon Principles. The effect of the fleet’s dynamic
operating conditions in the next decade on carbon intensity (taken as an average of the fleet, based on
vessels' deadweight) is shown in terms of percentage to the baseline (2019) and is compared to the Poseidon
Principles. The operating profile of these vessels has been considered constant, 50 percent at laden
condition, 35 percent at ballast condition and 15 percent idle.
Carbon Intensity – Bulk Carrier Company Fleet

5
Gram CO2 Per Tonne-Mile
0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Year
Poseidon Principles Annual Company’s fleet average
Efficiency Ratio Trajectory
Figure 1. Carbon intensity as a function of time for a bulk carrier fleet.
The table below shows a combination of elements a shipowner may want to consider when benchmarking
the carbon-intensity performance of their fleet against IMO targets, including past and future performance
of the vessels, and forecasts for any newbuilds in the next decade.
The baseline year is 2019, prior to the 2020 sulfur cap, so the vessels are assumed to burn heavy fuel oil (HFO)
for the main engine and marine diesel oils (MDO) for the auxiliaries. The assumption for 2020 is that the
vessels switch to MDO, so the carbon intensity slightly increases by two percent.
In 2021, the vessel speed is decreased from 13 to 12 knots, and the carbon intensity is decreased by 27 percent
compared to the baseline year. In 2025, three of the vessels are replaced by LNG fueled vessels of similar size
(complying with EEDI phase III requirements). The fleet’s speed remains at 12 knots, and the carbon intensity
is reduced by 36 percent. In 2030, two other vessels are replaced, with the new units burning biofuels. All
new vessels are assumed to have optimized design and negligible fouling, while existing vessels retain a
fouling allowance.
The underlying calculations based on these parameters reflect that with the introduction of operational
measures (e.g. speed reduction), new energy-efficiency technologies (including optimized hull designs) and
LNG as fuel, the average energy-intensity of the fleet can result in compliance with the 2030 GHG targets,
based on the Poseidon Principles trajectory.
However, achieving the IMO’s 2050 goals will be considerably more challenging without the introduction of
zero-carbon fuels.

FINDING A COMPANY PATHWAY TOWARDS DECARBONIZATION
Scenario Fuel for Fuel for Speed Carbon Intensity Carbon

Main Engine Auxiliary Intensity
Fleet of 10 bulk carriers: Engines Calculation Percentage
10 x 80k dwt prior EEDI, assumptions: Reduction
built in 2010 from
1. The carbon intensity baseline
Operating profile: has been calculated
• Laden 50% as an average of the
• Ballast 35% fleet
• Idle 15% 2. The carbon intensity

= CO2 emissions per
Note: Newbuildings are transport work
assumed with negligible 3. Transport work was
fouling, whilst existing vessels
with a fouling allowance.
calculated using
nominal deadweight,
not cargo carried
2019:
Bulk Carrier
Fleet 10 10 x 80k 0%, i.e.
vessels, prior HFO MDO 13 knots 4.4
dwt baseline
the 2020
Sulfur cap
2020:
Bulk Carrier
Fleet 10 10 x 80k
vessels, after MDO MDO 13 knots 4.5 +2%
dwt
the 2020
Sulfur cap
2021:
Slow steaming 10 x 80k
MDO MDO 12 knots 3.2 -27%
by 1 knot dwt
2025: 7 x 80k MDO MDO

Replacement dwt 2.8
of 3 vessels
with Phase III 3 x 85k LNG LNG Note: The newbuildings
vessels with dwt EEDI 12 knots are assumed with a 20% - 36%
LNG as fuel Phase III gain in specific fuel oil
consumption (SFOC), and
with LNG
a 5% gain in power from
as fuel design optimization
2030: 5 x 80k MDO MDO

Replacement dwt;
of 2 vessels
with Phase III 3 x 85k LNG LNG
vessels with dwt EEDI 2.2
biofuel Phase III
with LNG; Note: The newbuildings
are assumed with a
12 knots 0% gain in SFOC and a - 49%
2 x 85k 10% gain in Power from
dwt EEDI Biofuel Biofuel optimized design; For the
Phase biofuel, the carbon factor
III with is assumed as 0.4
biofuel

DESIGN STUDY OF FUTURE VESSELS
A
BS has collaborated with Herbert Engineering Corp. (HEC) to develop a series of tanker, bulk carrier,
and container ship design concepts to provide visual representations and specifications of practical
options for meeting the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) greenhouse gas (GHG) goals for
2030 and beyond.
Some of the concepts are based on technologies that are currently available or are likely to be available in
the 2030 time frame. Certain technologies considered are beyond the current state of the art. The concepts
provide a window into what may be possible using current knowledge and technology and are extended to
anticipate future development.
The schematics offer some insights into the limitations of current technology, future fuels (by current
metrics) and how these designs can affect criteria such as on board arrangements, cargo capacity and the
potential for propulsive power.
This study includes two baseline ship designs, a Suezmax tanker and a large bulk carrier, sailing on a global
trade route with high requirements for endurance. Also included are additional liquefied natural gas
(LNG) and ammonia fuel options for the 14,000-TEU containership that was first presented in ABS' 2019 Low
Carbon Shipping Outlook.
The general specifications for existing ships in the tanker and bulk carrier categories are:
Tanker Bulk Carrier
Size Category “Suezmax” “Newcastlemax”
Deadweight 160k at design draft 200k at scantling draft
Length About 275 m Max. 300 m
Beam About 48 m Max. 50 m
Endurance 18,000 nm 25,000 nm
Service Speed at Design Draft 14.8 knots 14.5 knots
These performance requirements are generally consistent with typical ships currently being designed and
built. For the low-carbon fuel alternatives, the requirements for endurance and service speed have been
reduced (by about 0.5 knots) in light of the higher capital and fuel costs.
In consideration of the lower energy density of low–carbon fuels, the range was reduced to about half of the
current standard.
For the tanker, the current 18,000 nm range reflects enough fuel and margin for about one and a half round-
trip voyages between the Middle East and northern China. The proposed endurance of 9,000 nm reflects
about a 50 percent margin over the longest Middle East to China one–way voyage.
For the bulk carrier, the current 25,000 nm range reflects sufficient fuel and margin for more than two
round-trip voyages between Australia and northern China. The proposed endurance of 12,000 nm reflects
fuel and margin for a full round-trip voyage on the longest eastern Australia to northern China route.
Having set the base cases, the study progresses to generally consider the following alternative future zero–
carbon fuel systems for the subject ships, plus some alternatives for the containerships, all constructed
around the 2030 timeframe:
• Biofuel internal combustion engine (ICE) (applied to the tanker)
• LNG/Bio-Natural Gas (BNG) internal combustion engine (bulker, containership, tanker)
• Hydrogen fuel cell (tanker)
• Ammonia fuel cells (tanker, containership)
• Ammonia internal combustion engine (bulker, containership)

The design concepts are verified at a conceptual level to meet the functional requirements stated above.
They also include some efficiency improvement measures, including:
• Optimized hull forms, including principal particulars
• Leading-edge propeller and rudder enhancements, including contra-rotating propellers
• Advanced coatings and measures to reduce hull friction, including air lubrication
• Streamlining to minimize wind resistance
• Shore power supply
• Reduced design speeds
The fuel and power and propulsion system options were extrapolated from the current state–of–the–art to
potential 2030 designs.
SHIP DESIGNS
The designs for the 2020 ships were based on conventional technology and are considered using low-sulfur
heavy fuel oil (LSHFO).
One of the 2030 technology options is expected to include the combustion of liquid biofuel (bio–diesel or
bio–gas oil). This concept ship will be largely similar to the base 2020 designs with a very modest adjustment
in its fuel tanks, treatment and engine settings for the different fuel specifications.
The LNG/BNG ships in this study are also similar to the baseline 2020 designs, utilizing current technology
in dual-fuel internal combustion engines (ICE) and current state–of–the–art LNG tank alternatives.
The liquefied hydrogen, combined with proton-exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells, was included as one
of the alternatives for the containership in ABS' 2019 Outlook, and a similar, but lower power version is
included in this report for the tanker design.
A liquid ammonia design is featured in both internal combustion engine and fuel cell versions.

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF AMMONIA FUELED SHIPS
FUEL CHARACTERISTICS AND STORAGE
Ammonia (NH3) is seen as an alternative carbon–free energy carrier to hydrogen. Unlike hydrogen,
ammonia is easy to liquefy by bringing it to temperatures below -34° C. It can also be carried in liquid form
at ambient temperature, typically compressed to around 18 bar.
These fuel characteristics enable the use of C–Type or prismatic tanks and require significantly lower re–
liquefaction energy compared to hydrogen or LNG. NH3 also has a narrow flammability range so it is not
considered an explosion hazard.
However, ammonia is toxic and very reactive. For this reason, the International Gas Carrier Code (IGC Code)
specifies strict requirements on the materials that can be used to contain ammonia, as well as on the design
features that a plant needs in order to minimize the risk of exposing personnel to NH3 poisoning.
Ammonia has a much better volumetric-energy density than hydrogen, close to that of methanol. For the
same energy requirement, the volume of NH3 storage tanks will be significantly less than of those for liquid
hydrogen, even more so when considering the volume of insulation that is required.
Finally, like LNG, NH3 tanks need to respect the requirements in the IGC Code on minimum distances from
the hull’s shell.
SHIPBOARD POWERING OPTIONS
Ammonia can be burned either in an ICE or used in fuel cells. Ammonia has high auto–ignition
temperature, high heat of vaporization, and narrow flammability range. Due to these characteristics,
ammonia typically requires a pilot fuel injection in order to be burned in two–stroke diesel cycle engines.
High pressure injection systems can help to minimize ammonia slip, an important consideration given
its stoxicity.
Combustion of ammonia results in NOx formation and will require selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
systems to reduce NOx in the exhaust gas. It is assumed that the use of a SCR converter would enable
ammonia engines to comply with present and future NOx emissions regulations.
The use of ammonia in fuel cells is still relatively experimental. However, the current pace of development
is accelerating, with large stationary plants currently under development.
In order to use NH3 in fuel cells, the hydrogen (H2) contained in the molecule needs to be extracted.
Although it is possible to achieve this through an external reformer so that the H2 can be used in low-
temperature fuel cells such as a PEM, using ammonia directly in high-temperature fuel cells such as solid
oxide (SOFC) can be a more efficient and compact solution.
There are also other advantages of using ammonia in SOFC, such as the high electrical efficiency achievable,
the absence of NOx production and the lack of vibration. However, SOFC currently have a relatively short
development track compared to ICE, and a very high comparative cost. These factors are expected to show
gradual improvement as research continues. An additional shortcoming of SOFC compared to PEM is the
sensitivity of the solid oxide ceramic materials used to heat gradients, which cause relatively long and
careful start up and shut down procedures, which often last for hours.
Ideally, SOFC plants should be run continuously to minimize the risk of permanent damage. This may
require the use of batteries for energy storage in order to accommodate fluctuations in load demand.
THE 2020 BASELINE SHIPS
THE BASELINE SUEZMAX TANKER
This ship is a conventional Suezmax with 6x2 cargo tanks offering 172,000 m3 in carrying capacity. It has a
conventional arrangement with a single direct-connected ICE and conventional auxiliaries. It normally runs
on LSHFO, without a scrubber, and marine diesel oil (MDO) in any emission control areas (ECA).

The speed at the design draft and 85 percent maximum continuous rating (MCR) power — assuming
a 15 percent sea margin — is 15.8 knots. The ship employs current state-of-the-art hull and propeller
optimization, meeting Phase Two of the IMO’s Energy Efficiency Index (EEDI). The endurance range is about
18,000 nm, with fuel consumption about 70 tons per day.
THE BASELINE BULK CARRIER
This ship has the nine conventional cargo holds of a newcastlemax large bulk carrier, and a cargo capacity
of 255,000 m3. It has a conventional arrangement with a single direct-connected ICE and conventional
auxiliaries. The ship normally runs on LSHFO, without a scrubber, and MDO in any ECAs.
The speed at the design draft and 85 percent MCR power — assuming 15 percent sea margin — is 15.8 knots.
The ship employs current state-of-the-art hull and propeller optimization, meeting EEDI Phase 2. The
endurance range is about 24,000 nm, with fuel consumption at about 70 tons/day.
THE 2030 LIQUID BIOFUEL SHIPS
THE LIQUID BIOFUEL SUEZMAX TANKER
This ship has a conventional arrangement with a single direct-connected ICE with conventional auxiliaries.
An overall four percent improvement in hull efficiency is assumed compared to the baseline ship by
considering the benefits of optimum hull design, a larger slower turning, optimized propeller design based
on a de–rated main engine, with minimal aerodynamic fairing.
The fuel storage and handling of liquid biofuels is similar to the current design practice. The design speed
is 14.3 knots at the design draft and the ship has a corresponding overall propulsion power about 92 percent
of the baseline design.
Engines operating on biofuels are assumed to have similar efficiencies to engines operating on fossil fuels.
This example considers the use of FAME biodiesel, which typically has seven to eight percent lower heating
value than HFO and about 10 percent lower density.
THE LNG SHIPS ABS Low Carbon Shipping

- Phase II
LIQUID BIOFUEL ICE SUEZMAX TANKER DATE: FEB 15, 2020
THE LNG ICE TANKER
REV: 0 SHT: 1/1
The LNG fueled ICE tanker is very similar to the biofuel ICE tanker; the major differences are the fuel
storage tanks and some technical modifications to the engines.

All of the engine and fuel storage technology considered is the current state–of–the–art with overall
efficiencies similar to fossil fuels. LNG has somewhat higher heating value per unit mass, but its liquid
density is about 50 percent lower than HFO.
Fuel tanks can be cryogenic Type 3 or Type 2 prismatic or membrane.
THE LNG ICE BULK CARRIER
A.P. F.P.
The LNG fueled bulk carrier is similarly configured to the baseline ship. An overall four percent
improvement in hull efficiency is assumed compared to the baseline ship by considering the benefits of
optimized hull design, and a larger slower turning, optimized propeller design based on a de–rated main
engine, with minimal aerodynamic fairing.
The design speed is 14.0 knots at the design draft, and the ship has corresponding overall propulsion power
of about 92 percent of the baseline design.
All of the engine and fuel storage technology considered is the current state–of–the–art with overall
efficiencies similar to fossil fuels. LNG has somewhat higher heating value per unit mass, but its liquid
density is about 50 percent lower than HFO.
Fuel tanks can be cryogenic Type Three or Type Two prismatic or membrane. ABS Low Carbon Shipping
- Phase II
LNG ICE 200K DWT BULK CARRIER DATE: FEB 15, 2020
THE 2030 AMMONIA SHIPS REV: 0 SHT: 1/1
THE NH3 ICE BULK CARRIER
A.P. F.P.
MAIN PARTICULARS POWERING MACHINERY

TheOverall
Length engine room 300 arrangement
m
is largely similar to the baseline
Main Engines 13800
ship
kW
arrangements.
MachineryThe lower heatingICEvalue
andBetween
Length density of ammonia
Particulars 292 m comparedAuxiliary
to HFO contribute to the
Engines requirement
10000 kW for significantly
Propulsion larger fuel FPP
tank
capacity than for HFO.
Breadth, Molded 50 m Speed 14.0 knots
Depth, Molded 25 m Fuel Consumption, Propulsion 95 MT/day
Draft, Scantling 18.4 m 130 m3/day
Unlike
Draft, Design the tanker,16.6 wherem deck space is availableTANK forCAPACITIES
Type C tanks, fuel is stowed below deck in the available
DWT at Scantling Draft 200K MT
DWTspace inDraft
at Design the engine room MT
and in Hold
CargoOne,
Holds decreasing the 241000cargo m3
volume by about five percent from 255,000
m3 to 241,000 m3. Ballast 70000 m3
Fuel, Mass 3800 MT
Fuel, Capacity 5200 m3
Range 12500 n. Miles
FUEL
Fuel Compressed NH3
ABS Low Carbon Shipping

- Phase II
97 | SETTING THE COURSE TO LOW CARBON SHIPPING | ABSNH3 ICE 200K DWT BULK CARRIER DATE: FEB 15, 2020
REV: 0 SHT: 1/1
THE NH3 SOFC TANKER
This design incorporates technologies which are beyond the current start of the art. The power generation
and propulsion system is envisioned to be fully electric with all of its power generated by SOFC using
ammonia. The assumed overall propulsive efficiency was 60 percent.
The fuel cells are sized to meet a maximum power capacity of 1.0 MW for auxiliaries, and 13.9 MW for
propulsion. The propulsion power is provided by two contra–rotating propellers; one is a conventional shaft
propeller driven by an 8.5 MW electric motor, and the other by a 5.4 MW steerable pod.
There is a minimum installed battery capacity of about 169 MWh, which is used for power conditioning,
dynamic stability and hybrid operations. The ammonia is stored in a pair of prismatic Type B tanks in the
engine room, but it could also be carried in Type C deck tanks.
THE NH3 ICE CONTAINERSHIP
ABS Low Carbon Shipping -

Phase II
NH3 SOFC 160K DWT SUEZMAX TANKER DATE: FEB 15, 2020
REV: 0 SHT: 1/1
The overall design of this ship is essentially unchanged POWERING

MAIN PARTICULARS from the current generation of new panamax TANK CAPACITIES
14,000 TEU carriers. It368features
Length Overall m a single direct-connected
Main Engine, Installed ICE with52290
conventional
kW auxiliaries. An overall five to
Ballast 4000
Length Between Particulars Main Engine, Dercted 46300 Liquified NH3 1370
six percent improvement in hull efficiency is assumed compared to the baseline ship, by considering the
350.9 m kW
Breadth, Molded 51 m Auxiliary Engine 15000 kW Liquified NH3, Mass 1000
benefits of optimized hull design, and aTotal
Depth, Molded larger
Power
slower turning, optimized
61300
propeller
kW
design based
(Type SPB)
on a de–
30 m
rated main engine, with
Draft, Scantling 15.5 modest
m aerodynamic
Speed fairing. 21.5 knots Range at Design Draft & Speed 1200
Cb at Design Draft 0.653 Fuel Consumption, Propulsion 318 MT/day
Draft, Design
Ammonia is carried 14.5 in a single
m Type B membrane tank forward of m3/dayroom and two similarCONTAINER
435the engine tanks
CAPACITY
Rows Wide On-Deck 20 (at 7.5mt/TEU, 0.95 stratification)
on each side of the room.
Tiers in Hold
The design speed of 21.5 knots at theLOADS
AUXILIARY design draft is a full knot slower
On-Deck than the 7765
11
Lightshipcurrent generation of ultra-large
49,330 MT container
Reefersvessels, and the ship features
at ave. 7kW 1200 an overall propulsion
In-Hold power less 6176
than
Deadweight 80 percent
at Design Draft of the baseline
124,214 MT design. Reefer Power at ave. 7kW 8400 kW Total 1452
Displacement at Design Draft 173,544 MT Bow Thrusters 2 x 1800 kW
THE NH3 SOFC CONTAINERSHIP
CONT
14000TEU NH3 ICE DATE:

REV:
This ship’s design is very similar to the hydrogen fuel cell ship described in ABS' 2019 Outlook, incorporating
advanced technologies, several of which are beyond the current start of the art.

The ship is envisioned to be fully electric with all power provided by SOFC using ammonia. The fuel cells
are sized to meet the maximum power capacity of 15 MW for auxiliary loads, and 43 MW for propulsion.
The propulsion is provided two contra–rotating propellers, one a conventional shaft propeller driven by a 26
MW electric motor, and the second by a 17 MW steerable pod.
Fuel storage is in a single Type B membrane tank, but alternate fuel tanks could also be the Type B prismatic
variety. The volume of stored ammonia required for the 12,000 nm endurance is 11,500 m3 .
THE 2030 HYDROGEN SHIPS
THE H2 FUEL CELL TANKER
This ship is similar to the ammonia SOFC tanker. It can use either PEM or SOFC fuel cells for power
generation and propulsion. The volume of fuel required for the 9,000 nm endurance is 8,820 m3 for liquid
hydrogen (versus 3,265 m3 for ammonia).
A different type of containment system and a re–liquefaction plant is required for the hydrogen version to
limit boil–off gas.
THE H2 FUEL CELL CONTAINERSHIP
ABS Low Carbon Shipping -

Phase II
LH2 PEM-FC SUEZMAX TANKER DATE: FEB 15, 2020
REV: 0 SHT: 1/1
This ship is similar to the ammonia SOFC containership with the same power capacity for auxiliary loads
and propulsion. It can use either PEM or SOFC fuel cells for power generation and propulsion.
However, the amount of stored liquid hydrogen required is 31,000 m3, which is about three times higher
than the ammonia ship.
THE HYBRID NH3 SOFC/BATTERIES CHEMICAL CARRIER
CONTAINE
PR
14000TEU LH2 FUEL CELL DATE:
MAIN PARTICULARS POWERING FUEL REV: 0

Length Overall 114.6 m Fuel Cell Capacity 3500 KW Fuel LIQUID NH3
Tank Type 2x C-Type on Deck
99 Length Between THE
| SETTING Particulars
COURSE107.9TO m
LOW Battery
CARBON Capacity | ABS
SHIPPING 15000 KWh
Breadth, Molded 16.8 m Main Propeller Motor 3000 KW
Depth, Molded 8.4 m Auxiliary Power 1000 KW
Draft, Scantling 6.5 m Speed 10 knots
This design incorporates advanced future features and technologies similar to those of the NH3 SOFC tanker.
The ship is fully electric with all power provided by NH3 solid oxide fuel cells. The fuel cells are sized to
meet the maximum power capacity of 3.5 MW, 1.0 MW of which are for auxiliary loads. The propulsion power
is provided to a single high-performance propeller matched to a rudder bulb by a 3.0 MW electric motor,
assuming that the auxiliary power can be reduced to 0.5 MW while sailing. The minimum installed battery
capacity is 15 MWh, which is used for power conditioning, dynamic energy stability, and hybrid operations.
This battery set is sufficient to provide enough power to the motor to take the 20 percent sea margin for 1.5
days, even when the full auxiliary load of 1.0 MW power is required, possibly for cargo heating. The schematic
shows the ammonia stored in a pair of C-Type tanks P/S on deck, ensuring a total range of 4,200 nm.
THE FULLY ELECTRIC CHEMICAL CARRIER
This ship is potentially small to consider the exploration of rechargeable Li-ion batteries for power. However,
MAIN PARTICULARS POWERING FUEL
even
Lengthat this size, this
Overall design
114.6 m shows the Batterylimitations
Capacity imposed by this
215000 KWh technology.Fuel The ship is fully electric
Lithium Batteries with
allLength
powerBetween provided
Particulars by
107.9two
m sets of Li-ion batteries
Main Propeller Motor that need 3000to be
KWrecharged at the end of each trip. One set is
Breadth, Molded 16.8 m Auxiliary Power 1000 KW
installed
Depth, Molded forward of8.4the main m propulsion
Speed motor in the ER10and provides knots 15 MWh of energy. The second set is
hosted in a separate6.4battery
Draft, Scantling m room at MS separated by the rest of the cargo block by two cofferdams forward
TANK CAPACITIES
Draft, Design 6.4 m
and
DWTaft. ThisDraft
at Scantling second set provides
MT 200Cargo
MWh of energy and 4950 increases
m3 the lightship weight from 2,850 MT to
3,850
DWT at MT.
DesignThe
Draft combination
5600 MTof the MS battery
Ballast
Battery, Mass
room and cofferdams
2800
1080
m3
MT
reduce the cargo capacity from 7,700 m3 to
Lightship 3850 MT
4,950 m . Notwithstanding the loss in
3
payload,
Battery, Capacity the total maximum
2150 m3 range provided by the batteries at 10 knots
is only 72 hours or 720 nm. The batteries Range
are sized to meet720 similar power requirements as the hybrid NH3
n. Miles
SOFC version shown above.
CONCLUSIONS ABS Low Carbon Shipping -

BATTERY POWERED 6600DWT CHEMICAL Phase II
DATE: FEB 15, 2020
The design study presented in this section showed that future tankers,
TANKERbulk carriers, and container vessels
REV: 0 SHT: 1/1
will require holistic designs based on the selected fuels and power generation and propulsion systems.
Fuels with low energy content will require larger tanks for storage and their location on board will be a
critical design factor.
Novel power generation systems such as fuel cells may also change the architecture of the current engine
room. They may enable more efficient use of space as they allow distributed placement.

OUTLOOK CONCLUSIONS
A
BS' 2020 Setting the Course to Low-Carbon Shipping — Pathways to Sustainable Shipping outlook
presents a comprehensive description of the three potential fuel pathways for meeting the
International Maritime Organization's (IMO) goals to decarbonize the global fleet.
It also offers key insights into: alternative power generation systems; the evolution of global trade and its
effect on fleet size; fuel consumption and emissions; operational measures to optimize vessel usage and
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; and conceptual designs and specifications for vessels opting to use
alternative fuels and power generation systems.
The key conclusions can be summarized as follows:
• The three fuel pathways are: (i) light gas, (ii) heavy gas-alcohol, and (iii) biofuel or synthetic fuels. All
three pathways start with fuels that can be used in existing power generation and propulsion systems and
have a proven potential to reduce or eliminate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other regulated emissions.
• The use of low- and zero-carbon fuels is essential in the effort to reduce the carbon footprint of future
vessels. The operational profile of each vessel will dictate the choice of fuel and propulsion system, based
on requirements for bunkering and cargo capacity.
• Low- and zero-carbon fuels that have low volumetric energy content, such as methanol, ammonia or
hydrogen, may require holistic redesigns of vessels to be used as primary fuels.
• Petroleum-based fuels are expected to have a considerable market share by 2050 (up to 40 percent), which
makes the use of carbon capture and sequestration systems relevant not only for shore applications, but
potentially on board marine vessels.
• Novel power generation systems such as hybrid diesel-electric or fuel cells have the potential to
offer significant emissions benefits. The first applications of such systems are in specific vessel types,
especially those that operate in environmentally sensitive areas such as ports. Their market penetration is
increasing; however, wider adoption to larger vessels will require more technological innovation and the
cost reductions associated with economies of scale.
• Decarbonization of the global economy is likely to lead to profound changes in trade volumes and
patterns in the full range of commodities transported by sea over the next 30 years. These changes will
affect the evolution of the fleet and reduce certain vessel segments over the period to 2050.
• The transition to low- and zero-carbon fuels is likely to increase the cost of vessels and their operation in
the medium term, until the associated technologies for fuel production, distribution, bunkering and on
board use become more cost effective.
• The anticipated alternative fuel and power generation technologies will require the adoption of new
regulations, which in turn may affect cargo and trade volumes.
• New safety regulations also will be required to ensure the wide adoption of new technologies and
operational frameworks that may not be covered by current standards.
• Based on the projected fuel mix for the five vessel segments analyzed in this study, shipping can meet
the IMO’s target to reduce CO2 emissions per transport work (gCO2/dwt/nm) by 70 percent by 2050, relative
to 2008. However, to achieve a 50 percent reduction in absolute CO2 emissions (ton), the market share of
petroleum fuels will need to be further reduced by 2050 (below 40 percent).

ABS ACTIVITIES
T
he synchronized search for zero-carbon
fuels and more fuel-efficient vessels
is on course to make the business of
transporting trade by sea cleaner, more efficient
and more cost effective.
As with any large-scale industry transition,

success will not come easily or without the
significant disruptions that pose unique and
unprecedented challenges and opportunities,
especially for early adopters.
This document highlights the challenges

associated with meeting the International
Maritime Organization's (IMO) decarbonization
targets and focuses on the ways the industry
will be able to respond. The decarbonization
challenge can be addressed by a combination of
alternative fuel use, new technology application
and operational efficiency measures.
The shipping industry is at a point where well-

informed decisions are reducing its collective
carbon footprint, while simultaneously meeting
growing public demand to lessen its impact on
the environment and adopt more sustainable
business models.
ABS is committed to supporting the shipping

industry by continuing to develop the tools and
services that facilitate decision-making and
help the operator to navigate the challenges
addressed in this document.
Reaching the future milestones for

decarbonization will require contributions
from existing ships. Benchmarking greenhouse gas (GHG) output and investigating ways to reduce that at the
vessel and fleet levels are at the core of this effort.
Building the decarbonization trajectory for a fleet requires a specific toolbox to address the complexities
of decision-making. ABS has developed a set of tools and services to deliver a rapid response and
decision support.
Utilizing digital tools and advanced visualization, ABS can create a bespoke dashboard for each ship which
tracks the output of metrics related to performance and decarbonization indicators. The Sustainability
Dashboard dynamically monitors the targets set by the operator to reach their sustainability goals.
Ship designs are already required to improve in order to comply with the next phase of the IMO’s Energy
Efficiency Design Index; but that the contribution of this initiative to meeting the IMO’s ambitious GHG
targets will be minimal.
New low- and zero-carbon energy sources will be needed to reach the 2050 targets. New, holistic vessel designs
will be necessary to accommodate this change and address the complexity of available technical options.
With its state-of-the-art simulation tools, ABS can help operators to identify the optimum technology mix
that is best suited for each ship and its operating profile. As a class society, ABS is focused on working with
other industry stakeholders to maintain safety as new fuels and technologies are introduced.

REFERENCES
1. Krantz et al., “The scale of investment needed to decarbonize international shipping,” Getting to Zero
Coalition Insight Series, 2020
2. https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility
3. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en
4. MAN Diesel & Turbo, “Costs and Benefits of using LNG as Ship Fuel for Container Vessels,” 2012
5. MAN Diesel & Turbo, “Using Methanol Fuel in the MAN B&W ME-LGI Series,” 2014
6. Cornerstone environmental group, LLC 'Biomethane / Natural Gas Interconnection Opportunities'
7. Kachan & Co. 'The Bio Natural Gas Opportunity,’ 2011
8. "Natural Gas Can Come From Renewable Sources." www.socalgas.com. Sempre Energy. Retrieved May 3, 2018.
9. 'Potential for BioSNG Production in the U.K., NNFCC 10-008'
10. Van der Meijden, C.M. (2010). Development of the MILENA gasification technology for the production of
Bio-SNG, Petten, Netherlands: ECN
11. Åhman, M. (2010). Biomethane in the transport sector — An appraisal of the forgotten option. Energy Policy,
38(1), 208-217.
12. Florisson, O., “A step towards the hydrogen economy by using the existing natural gas grid (the
NATURALHY-project).” N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie, 2014
13. Melaina, M. W., et al., “Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues,”
Technical Report NREL/TP-5600-51995, 2013
14. International Energy Agency, “The Future of Hydrogen,” 2019
15. World LPG Association, “LPG for Marine Engines — The Alternative Marine Fuel,” 2017
16. MAN Energy Solutions, “MAN B&W ME-LGIP dual-fuel engines,” 2018
17. Bengtsson, S., et al. (2011). A comparative life cycle assessment of marine fuels: liquefied natural gas
and three other fossil fuels. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of
Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 225(2), 97-110.
18. Environmental Protection Agency, “Risk Management Program Guidance for Ammonia Refrigeration,” 2008
19. MAN Energy Solutions, “Engineering the future two-stroke green-ammonia engine,” 2019
20. Veltman, M., et al., “Developing Fuel Injection Strategies for Using Ammonia in Direct Injection Diesel
Engines,” 2012
21. Bicer, Y. et al., (2016). Comparative life cycle assessment of various ammonia production methods. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 135, 1379-1395.
22. Portin K., et al., “Wärtsilä Gas Engine Development & Methanol Adaptation,” ClassNK Seminar Singapore,
2015
23. International Energy Agency — Bioenergy, “Biofuels for the marine shipping sector,” 2017
24. Okamoto, K., et al., (2010). Impact Study of High Biodiesel Blends on Exhaust Emissions to Advanced
Aftertreatment Systems (No. 2010-01-1292). SAE Technical Paper.
25. Gopalan, K., et al., (2019). Assessing the impact of FAME and diesel fuel composition on stability and vehicle
filter blocking. SAE Technical Papers.
26. Kuronen, M., et al., (2007). Hydrotreated vegetable oil as fuel for heavy duty diesel engines (No. 2007-01-4031).
SAE Technical Paper.
27. Aatola H., et al., “Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) as a Renewable Diesel Fuel: Trade-off between NOx,
Particulate Emission, and Fuel Consumption of a Heavy Duty Engine,” SAE Technical Paper, 2008-01-2500,
2008
28. International Energy Agency — Bioenergy, “Technical Report — Comparison of Biofuel Life Cycle Analysis
Tools,” 2018
29. Alleman, T. L., & McCormick, R. L. (2003). Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuels-properties and exhaust emissions: A
literature review (No. 2003-01-0763). SAE Technical Paper.
30. Kajitani, S., et al., (2002). A study of low compression ratio dimethyl ether diesel engines. International
Journal of Engine Research, 3(1), 1-11.
31. Kapus, P. E., & Cartellieri, W. P. (1995). ULEV potential of a DI/TCI diesel passenger car engine operated on
dimethyl ether (No. 952754). SAE Technical Paper
32. Tsuchiya, T., & Sato, Y. (2006). Development of DME engine for heavy-duty truck (No. 2006-01-0052). SAE
Technical Paper
33. Pearson, R. J. et al., (2011). Energy Storage via Carbon-Neutral Fuels Made from CO2, Water and Renewable
Energy. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(2), 440-460.
34. Lamprinidis N., Belibassakis K., 2017

WORLD HEADQUARTERS
1701 City Plaza Drive
Spring, TX 77389 USA
P 1-281-877-6000
F 1-281-877-5976
[email protected]
www.eagle.org
© 2020 American Bureau of Shipping.

All rights reserved.

ABS Sustainability Outlook II - Pathways - Low-Res

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABS Sustainability Outlook II - Pathways - Low-Res

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABS Sustainability Outlook II - Pathways - Low-Res

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SETTING THE COURSE TO

LOW CARBON SHIPPING

Assessment of Impacts on States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

ENERGY MARKET FORECAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Energy Market Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

THE LINK BETWEEN TRADE AND TECHNOLOGY CHOICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

HOW TAXONOMIES LEAD TO FUEL PATHWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The Light Gas Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

The Heavy Gas and Alcohol Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The Bio/Synthetic Fuels Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

LIGHT GAS PATHWAY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Current State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

HEAVY GAS AND ALCOHOL PATHWAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Current State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

BIO/SYNTHETIC FUEL PATHWAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Current State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Medium- and Long-Term Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

HYBRID ELECTRIC POWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Current Developments and Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Current Development and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Current Developments and Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

GLOBAL TRADE AND ITS EFFECT ON DECARBONIZATION OF SHIPPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Cargo Demand and Fleet Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

JUST-IN-TIME AND OPTIMUM SHIP ROUTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

The Case for JIT Shipping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

The Case for OSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

FINDING A COMPANY PATHWAY TOWARDS DECARBONIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

DESIGN STUDY OF FUTURE VESSELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Preliminary Assessment of Ammonia Fueled Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

The 2020 Baseline Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

The 2030 Liquid Biofuel Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

The LNG Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

The 2030 Ammonia Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

The 2030 Hydrogen Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

OUTLOOK CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

ABS ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

1 | SETTING THE COURSE TO LOW CARBON SHIPPING | ABS

ABS | PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABLE SHIPPING | 2

Phase 0 Phase 0 (2013-2014): 0%

Reduction Factors At beginning of Phase 1 and at midpoint of Phase 2,

least 40 percent by 2030 compared to 2008 levels, aiming at

0.4 The MEPC also approved a roadmap (2017–2023) for

0.2 The revised strategy is due for adoption in 2023, supported

ABS | PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABLE SHIPPING | 4

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON STATES

5 | SETTING THE COURSE TO LOW CARBON SHIPPING | ABS

ENERGY MARKET FORECAST

ABS | PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABLE SHIPPING | 6

Index 2025 = 100

Figure 1: Forecast of global future demand for oil.

Index 2025 = 100

Figure 2: Forecast of global future demand for natural gas.

7 | SETTING THE COURSE TO LOW CARBON SHIPPING | ABS

Index 2025 = 100

Figure 3: Forecast of global future demand for coal.

ABS | PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABLE SHIPPING | 8

Trade Factors and Technology Adoption