Alternative Fuels
SEA LNG: Compare ‘apples with apples’ to cut emissions and costs
Ship owners will lock in higher emissions and cost decarbonisation pathways if they choose alternative fuels which will not be available at commercial scale in near future.
Global multi-sector industry coalition SEA-LNG on Thursday (7 July) released a framework for comparing the emissions and cost implications of adopting future fuel pathways and urges the industry to make like-for-like comparisons when discussing alternative marine fuels. It believes LNG as a marine fuel delivers immediate GHG benefits and a lower risk, lower cost, incremental pathway to zero emissions:
The industry is making newbuild investment decisions now that will impact greenhouse gas emissions today and for the next 25-30 years, the typical lifetime of a vessel. It is essential their assessments of alternative marine fuel pathways are made on a like-for-like, or “apples with apples” basis. Discussion of alternative fuels too often compares the green versions of ammonia and methanol with fossil, or grey, LNG. The reality is that all fuels share a common pathway from fossil-based versions, produced from natural gas to hydrogen-based, synthetic fuels. These synthetic fuels will only become available as and when sufficient renewable electricity and electrolysis capacity comes online to produce them.
Decarbonisation will not be a “big bang” process where the industry moves in a single step from fossil to zero-emission, renewable fuels. It is likely to take place incrementally as fuels are gradually decarbonised through the addition of low and zero-emission drop-ins.
Shared fossil feedstocks
This transition pathway is illustrated in Figure 1. Almost all alternative fuels today, including LNG, are fossil-based, in fact most are produced from natural gas. LNG is simply natural gas that has been cooled to the point it liquefies. Natural gas, and sometimes coal, is also the feedstock for almost all methanol, ammonia and hydrogen production.
Uniquely, fossil LNG offers significant greenhouse gas emissions reduction when used as a marine fuel compared with VLSFO – up to 23% on a full lifecycle (Well-to-Wake) basis according to an independent study by Sphera . By contrast, the use of fossil methanol, ammonia and (liquid) hydrogen results in emissions far higher than those associated with VLSFO because of the large amounts of energy required for their production.
A biofuel market
Emissions can be significantly reduced through the use of fuels derived from sustainable biomass. BioLNG is already commercially available in Europe as a marine bunker fuel today and has penetrated the heavy-duty vehicle road transportation sector in both Europe and North America. Biomethanol also exists in limited quantities, but mainly as an industrial chemical feedstock.
The ultimate, zero-emissions destination for all alternative fuels is for them to be synthesised from hydrogen produced from renewable electricity. Once this renewable hydrogen building block exists at scale it is possible to produce e-LNG, e-methanol, e-ammonia or e-hydrogen. It is important to note that around 70% to 80% of the cost of producing these e-fuels is associated with hydrogen production
We need to consider the pathway, not simply the destination
The implications for the climate and for shipowners can be best understood by looking at an example of investment decision. In Figure 2 we illustrate the case of a 14,000 TEU container vessel coming into operation in 2025, dual-fuelled with a 25-year lifespan and with renewable fuels becoming available at increasing scale from about 2030 onwards.
Modelling the emissions over the life of the vessel we can see that LNG offers immediate GHG reductions decreasing to zero-emissions by 2050. The bar chart shows an overall emissions reduction for the LNG pathway of more than 50% over the lifetime of the vessel, compared with VLSFO; for methanol and ammonia the corresponding reductions are 37% and 28%.
If we now look at the methanol and ammonia pathways, they also offer lifetime emissions reductions, but the reductions are smaller – 37% and 28% respectively – as they start from a “worse” place. Fossil methanol emissions are 14% higher than VLSFO on a full lifecycle basis; for ammonia the corresponding number is 47%. This is likely to mean owners and operators choosing methanol and ammonia pathways will be forced to continue using VLSFO, postponing emissions reduction for several years.
For methanol and ammonia to achieve emissions parity with LNG they will require blends of approximately 30% renewable methanol and 50% renewable ammonia immediately. The fossil versions of methanol and ammonia are already significantly more expensive than LNG and the renewable versions are likely to cost multiples more than their fossil equivalents. This will make the starting points for these pathways considerably more expensive than beginning with LNG. Note, this ignores any indirect costs associated with creating new bunkering infrastructure, which will be necessary for e-methanol, e-ammonia and e-hydrogen.
Waiting is not an option
In summary, committing to solutions which rely on alternative fuels which will not be available at commercial scale in a renewable form for the foreseeable future, means owners locking in higher emissions and higher cost decarbonisation pathways. LNG as a marine fuel delivers immediate GHG benefits and a lower risk, lower cost, incremental pathway to zero emissions.
Steve Esau, Chief Operating Officer, SEA-LNG said: “When looking at the advantages and disadvantages of alternative fuels, we should be assessing the characteristics of each fuel type on a like-for-like basis. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are a stock problem as well as a flow problem. The industry needs to consider the pathway to decarbonisation, not just the destination. Waiting is not an option.
“The consequences of delaying the shift away from fuel oils, which will cause faster rising cumulative emissions, meaning the challenge to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases will be harder. Shipping needs to assess fuel pathways based on how they can deliver decarbonisation benefits now, and in the future, and also the likely cost to society of these pathways”.
Photo credit: SEA LNG
Published: 8 July, 2022
Alternative Fuels
Yang Ming orders six LNG dual-fuel, ammonia-ready containerships from Hanwha Ocean
Each of the six new vessels will have a capacity of up to 13,650 TEU and feature LNG dual-fuel propulsion and Ammonia Fuel Ready specifications.
Alternative Fuels
LR, China’s MARIC unveil tanker concept ready for three future bunker fuels
Both secured AiP for a new 114,000 DWT product and crude oil tanker designed to accommodate future conversion to LNG, methanol or ammonia.
Alternative Fuels
DNV: Alternative-fuelled vessel orders hit highest monthly level since October 2024
LNG-fuelled vessels accounted for the vast majority of August activity while the strong summer performance marked a significant acceleration in ordering activity after a relatively slow start to the year.
Latest data from classification society DNV’s Alternative Fuels Insight (AFI) platform alternative-fuelled vessel ordering was strong in August, with 52 new vessels added to the platform.
This is the highest monthly total since October 2024 and follows another active month in July, when 47 vessels were added to the database.
LNG-fuelled vessels accounted for the vast majority of August activity, with 46 orders recorded. The container segment led the way with 30 orders, while the car carrier segment contributed a further 12 LNG-fuelled vessels. In addition, four ethanol-fuelled bulk carriers and two hydrogen-powered bulk carriers were added during the month, as well as one LNG bunker vessel.
The strong summer performance marked a significant acceleration in ordering activity after a relatively slow start to the year. In total, 242 alternative-fuelled vessel orders have been placed in the first eight months of 2026, representing a 27% increase compared with the same period in 2025.
LNG remains the dominant fuel choice, accounting for 63% of all alternative-fuelled vessel orders registered so far this year. Container vessels represent the largest share of these LNG orders (59%), followed by car carriers (30%).
Jason Stefanatos, Global Decarbonization Director at DNV Maritime, said: “The past two months have been particularly strong for alternative-fuelled vessel ordering, with August recording the highest monthly total we’ve seen since October 2024. This has helped lift year-to-date orders to a level well above the same period last year.
“LNG remains the leading fuel choice, driven largely by activity in the container and car carrier segments. These sectors have been among the earliest adopters of alternative fuels, supported by predictable liner operations and increasing demand from cargo owners to reduce emissions across supply chains.
“For many owners, LNG offers a combination of emissions reductions, fuel availability and future flexibility while the longer-term fuel landscape continues to evolve.
“At the same time, the latest figures include orders for ethanol- and hydrogen-fuelled vessels, highlighting that owners continue to explore a range of decarbonization pathways. Different segments are making different fuel choices, but the overall level of activity demonstrates continued investment in lower-emission shipping.”
Photo credit: DNV
Published: 4 September, 2026
OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS
Yang Ming orders six LNG dual-fuel, ammonia-ready containerships from Hanwha Ocean
LR, China’s MARIC unveil tanker concept ready for three future bunker fuels
DNV: Alternative-fuelled vessel orders hit highest monthly level since October 2024
TFG Marine advances global MFM rollout with two US Gulf bunker barges
GENA Solutions: Total renewable and low-carbon methanol project pipeline increases from 61.8 to 62.2 Mt by 2032
Baltic Exchange: Bunker Report (3 September 2026)
ENGINE: Americas Fuel Availability Outlook (3 September 2026)
Singapore-flagged tugboat “Kim Heng 3203” placed under Sheriff’s arrest
US targets five bunker companies in latest sanctions campaign against Iran
Singapore bunkering community supports Living Hope Evangelism’s 7th anniversary outreach for residents in need
China’s bunker market reshaped by tax rebates, trade flows and refining changes, says economist
Hengli Petrochemical’s ex-Singapore trading arm faces winding up application
Report: GCMD outlines practical approach to quantity assurance in marine biofuel supply chains
Singapore: Notices of intended dividend issued for Ocean Bunkering Services, Hin Leong Marine
-
Vessel Arrest1 week agoSingapore-flagged tugboat “Kim Heng 3203” placed under Sheriff’s arrest
-
Sanctions1 week agoUS targets five bunker companies in latest sanctions campaign against Iran
-
Events2 weeks agoSingapore bunkering community supports Living Hope Evangelism’s 7th anniversary outreach for residents in need
-
Interview1 week agoChina’s bunker market reshaped by tax rebates, trade flows and refining changes, says economist
-
Winding up1 week agoHengli Petrochemical’s ex-Singapore trading arm faces winding up application
-
Biofuel1 week agoReport: GCMD outlines practical approach to quantity assurance in marine biofuel supply chains
-
Winding up2 weeks agoSingapore: Notices of intended dividend issued for Ocean Bunkering Services, Hin Leong Marine
-
Bunker Claim3 days agoRajah & Tann: Bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours