Connect with us
DNV Decarbonization Insight Series August 2026 - What maritime professionals should know about AI Training

Alternative Fuels

Interview: IRClass answers key questions on alternative bunker fuels

Mr. P.K. Mishra of Indian Register of Shipping, goes into details on new bunker fuels including challenges they pose on classification societies and expertise IRClass offers to overcome them.

Admin

Published

on

Interview: IRClass answers key questions on alternative bunker fuels

Singapore-based bunkering publication Manifold Times recently interviewed Mr. P.K. Mishra, Managing Director of Indian Register of Shipping (IRClass), on alternative bunker fuels including challenges they pose on classification societies and expertise IRClass offers to overcome them.

He also touched on the viability of nuclear for commercial maritime:

MT:  Can you describe the new challenges IMO2030/2050 bring for classification societies, specifically in approving the new breed of vessels using alternative bunker fuels?

The IMO climate goals bring several challenges for classification societies, particularly in approving vessels using alternative fuels. One of the main challenges is ensuring the safety, reliability, and environmental compliance of these fuels, such as hydrogen, ammonia and methanol. Each alternative fuel has unique properties and hazards, requiring updated safety protocols, risk assessments, and design standards.

Classification societies are working towards developing new rules and guidelines for the construction, operation, and maintenance of vessels utilising such alternate fuels.

Another challenge is ensuring global uniformity and consistency in safety standards while addressing regional regulatory differences, which requires extensive collaboration with stakeholders, including shipowners, shipyards, equipment manufacturers, and regulatory bodies.

Sustainability is another aspect – though taken up at IMO level, the classification society has to provide the correct input/understanding to the ship owners and ship operators with regards to its compliance/usage on board and also about the benefits on CII and other incentives as will be decided at IMO.

MT: What are the expertise and solutions IRCLASS offers to overcome these challenges, and how do they differ from the competition?

Indian Register of Shipping brings a wealth of expertise in addressing the challenges posed by the new fuel ecosystem. Our approach is characterized by a deep understanding of both traditional and emerging technologies, while addressing specific needs.

We provide comprehensive services that include risk assessment, feasibility studies, and technical guidance for the integration of alternative fuels into vessel design and operations. Our unique differentiation lies in our commitment to innovation and our proactive approach to developing guidelines and rules for new technologies. IRS invests extensively in research and development to stay ahead of industry trends and regulatory requirements.

Additionally, our global presence combined with local expertise allows us to offer customized support, ensuring compliance with both international and regional regulations. This dual advantage of global reach and local presence, along with our strong industry partnerships, sets us apart from our competitors.

Mr. P.K. Mishra, Managing Director of Indian Register of Shipping (IRClass)

Mr. P.K. Mishra, Managing Director of Indian Register of Shipping (IRClass)

MT: In your opinion, which alternative bunker fuel offers the best solution for shipowners in meeting future IMO2030/2050 and FuelEU/EU ETS requirements? What are its pros and cons?

There isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer when it comes to the best alternative fuel for meeting decarbonisation goals. However, each fuel option has its own advantages and disadvantages:

  • LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) is currently the most mature and widely available alternative fuel, with an existing bunkering infrastructure. It offers a significant reduction in CO2 emissions and virtually eliminates sulphur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter.
    However, LNG still emits methane (a potent greenhouse gas) during extraction and transport, which poses environmental concerns. It is also a fossil fuel, which may limit its long-term viability under future decarbonization goals and therefore may be considered as a transitionary fuel.
  • Hydrogen has the potential for zero-emission shipping when produced from renewable sources. It is versatile and can be used in fuel cells or internal combustion engines.
    The storage and handling of hydrogen pose significant challenges due to its low energy density and high flammability. The production of green hydrogen is also currently energy-intensive and costly.
  • Ammonia does not emit CO2 when burned, making it a promising zero-carbon fuel. It is easier to store and transport than hydrogen and has a well-established production and distribution network. Ammonia is however toxic and poses serious safety risks if not handled properly. The combustion process needs to be optimized to minimize nitrous oxide emissions.
  • Methanol is easy to handle, biodegradable, and has a lower carbon footprint compared to conventional fuels. It can be produced from renewable sources like biomass and captured CO2. Methanol has a lower energy density than traditional fuels, which could affect ship range. It also still emits CO2, although at a reduced rate.

At this point in time when no green fuel is under production at scale and available, it is difficult to guess which future fuels will survive, or which of ammonia, hydrogen, methanol, LNG, LPG or additives-rich biofuels might dominate. Rather than one fuel, the industry will select different fuels for different types of ship, and it is important not to eliminate any of the current options too early as an industry.

MT: Taking into consideration future environmental regulations, what variables should a bunker tanker owner/operator, based in different regions around the world, take into consideration when choosing newbuilding criteria?

When choosing newbuilding criteria, bunker tanker owners/operators should consider several key variables in light of future environmental regulations:

Fuel Type and Flexibility: The choice of primary and secondary fuels is critical. Owners/operators should consider fuels that are compliant with current and anticipated future regulations, including IMO2030/2050 and regional requirements like the EU’s FuelEU and ETS. Flexibility to switch between fuels could provide a competitive advantage.

Design and Technology: The vessel’s design should incorporate energy-efficient technologies, such as hull optimization, advanced propulsion systems, and waste heat recovery systems. Hybrid or dual-fuel engines may provide flexibility and compliance advantages.

Operational Region: Regional regulations and fuel availability will play a significant role. Understanding the environmental regulations of the operating regions and the availability of compliant fuels and bunkering infrastructure is essential.

Lifecycle Costs: Consider the total cost of ownership, including capital expenditure (CapEx) and operating expenditure (OpEx). Investments in more sustainable technologies may have higher upfront costs but could result in lower operational costs over time due to fuel efficiency and reduced emissions penalties.

Safety and Compliance: Ensuring the vessel meets all international and regional safety and environmental regulations is paramount. This includes having the necessary certifications and adopting best practices for environmental performance.

MT: Taking into consideration future environmental regulations, what variables should a shipowner operating in different maritime sectors take into consideration when choosing newbuilding criteria?

Different maritime sectors (e.g., bulk carriers, container ships, tankers) have unique operational profiles, which impact fuel consumption and emissions. Shipowners should select designs and technologies that best align with their specific operational needs and regulatory requirements.

Fuel Type and Future-Proofing: Selecting the right fuel is critical, considering not only current but also anticipated future regulations. Ships that can operate on multiple fuel types may have a competitive advantage, providing flexibility as fuel availability and prices change.

Energy Efficiency Measures: Implementing energy-efficient technologies, such as advanced hull designs, air lubrication systems, and energy recovery devices, will help reduce fuel consumption and emissions, contributing to compliance with future regulations.

Technology and Innovation: Incorporating advanced digital tools for fuel optimization, emissions monitoring, and predictive maintenance can enhance operational efficiency and regulatory compliance.

Environmental Impact: Consideration of the vessel’s overall environmental footprint, including emissions, noise pollution, and waste management, is increasingly important. Compliance with stricter environmental standards may require additional investment in technologies that reduce emissions and improve sustainability.

Cost Impact: The costing and future availability of fuel depending upon the vessel’s operating profile plays a major role in selecting a new building project.

MT: Would nuclear power ever be considered a viable solution to power commercial maritime trade? What are its technological challenges to become a mainstream energy source for powering sea-going vessels, and how could they be resolved?

Nuclear power has the potential to be a viable solution for powering commercial maritime trade due to its high energy density, zero emissions during operation, and ability to provide continuous power over long durations without refuelling.

However, there are several technological, regulatory, and societal challenges that need to be addressed for nuclear power to become a mainstream energy source for sea-going vessels. Resolving these challenges would require significant advancements in nuclear technology, robust international collaboration on safety and regulatory frameworks, and addressing public and political concerns about the use of nuclear power in commercial shipping.

The challenges also involve economic viability compared to conventional ships, infrastructure deficit such as for port infrastructure required for nuclear ships.

 

Photo credit: Indian Register of Shipping
Published: 23 September, 2024

Continue Reading

Methanol

Wallenius Wilhelmsen, EUKOR secure green methanol bunker fuel supply from EcoMethanol

Under a MoU, Hyundai Corporation will buy the methanol produced in Taebaek and sell it on to the two carriers, which will burn it as fuel in their own fleets.

Admin

Published

on

By

Wallenius Wilhelmsen, EUKOR secure green methanol bunker fuel supply from EcoMethanol

South Korean firm EcoMethanol on Wednesday (26 August) signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on the supply of green methanol with Taebaek City, Hyundai Corporation, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean AS of Norway and EUKOR Car Carriers. 

The signing took place at EUKOR’s head office in Seoul.

EcoMethanol is the special purpose company set up by South Korean clean energy firm Plagen to build a green methanol plant in Taebaek, Gangwon State. 

Under the MoU, Hyundai Corporation will buy the methanol produced in Taebaek and sell it on to the two carriers, which will burn it as fuel in their own fleets. Taebaek City takes part as an equity co-investor and will provide administrative and policy support. Production, trading and end use are tied together in a single chain, the first such arrangement in Korea.

Manifold Times previously reported Taebaek City and Plagen signing an investment agreement for a new green methanol production plant in the South Korean city that will be supplied as bunker fuel.

Wallenius Wilhelmsen, EUKOR secure green methanol bunker fuel supply from EcoMethanol

The plant will produce 15,000 metric tonnes (mt) a year from forestry residues, using dual fluidized bed (DFB) gasification, a process already proven in commercial operation. Total investment is KRW 120 billion.

EcoMethanol holds Korea’s integrated environmental permit, has secured its site in the Dongjeom Industrial Complex and has completed basic design. Construction is due to start in December 2026 and commercial production in January 2029. The plant will employ 36 people locally.

Taebaek’s role as a production hub is written into both national and provincial plans. The Taebaek Jangseong Colliery Economic Revitalization Project cleared preliminary feasibility review in 2025 with a green methanol facility included in its scope, and Gangwon State lists a green methanol cluster in its mid- to long-term investment plan for former coal-mining regions. Dongjeom will be the first of these facilities to be built, because its industrial site is already developed.

Carbon regulation in shipping is no longer a prospect. The EU Emissions Trading System now covers maritime transport, the FuelEU Maritime regulation on greenhouse gas intensity is in force, and the International Maritime Organization is moving toward adoption of its Net-Zero Framework.

Korean carriers are already buying green methanol. HMM’s methanol-fueled container ships HMM Green and HMM Forest took on 2,900 mt and 3,110 mt at Yangshan Port in Shanghai in March and May 2025. 

The car carrier Arctic Tern, operated by EUKOR, loaded about 2,800 mt in Shanghai in July 2026 before starting commercial service on the Asia-Europe route. All of that fuel was made in China.

Korea produces none of its own. Ulsan Port was the first port anywhere to bunker green methanol for a ship, in 2023, but the fuel had been imported. 

Korea consumes roughly 2 million mt of methanol a year, most of it imported and made from fossil feedstock.

The Taebaek plant would be the country’s first domestic source of clean marine fuel.

Related: Korea: Taebaek City and PLAGEN to build green methanol bunker fuel plant

 

Photo credit: EcoMethanol
Published: 28 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Alternative Fuels

DNV report: Regulatory uncertainty demands fleet strategies built for multiple futures

Report examines four regulatory scenarios, ranging from adoption of IMO NZF in its current form to its outright rejection, energy efficiency uptake, and long-term bunker fuel and technology strategies.

Admin

Published

on

By

DNV report: Regulatory uncertainty demands fleet strategies built for multiple futures

Regulatory uncertainty is increasing pressure on shipowners to make investment decisions that remain viable across multiple future scenarios, said classification society DNV on Thursday (27 August). 

According to DNV’s 10th Maritime Forecast to 2050, stronger global regulatory signals could accelerate the uptake of energy-efficiency measures, enabling the global fleet to consume up to 25% less energy by 2050 compared to a scenario where regulation is driven by regions.

The report examines four regulatory scenarios, ranging from adoption of the IMO Net-Zero Framework (NZF) in its current form to its outright rejection, which could lead to a period of prolonged regulatory gridlock, and explores the implications of these outcomes for fuel demand, energy efficiency uptake, and long-term fleet fuel and technology strategies.

Cristina Saenz de Santa Maria, CEO Maritime, DNV, said: “Ships ordered today will operate well beyond 2050, but many of the factors shaping their future performance remain uncertain. Regulatory requirements are advancing faster than the fuel, infrastructure, and technological systems needed to support them, making long-term investment decisions increasingly complex. The industry therefore needs greater clarity and alignment among all stakeholders to provide the confidence required for long-term investment. In the meantime, shipowners need strategies that deliver benefits today while remaining resilient across a range of regulatory and market outcomes.”

Energy efficiency is one of the most immediate and practical levers available to shipowners, delivering value across regulatory outcomes whether implemented at the newbuild stage or as a retrofit. A case study of a hydrodynamic measures retrofit on a 5,000 TEU container vessel showed potential annual fuel savings of 16%, with a payback time of around one to four years depending on future fuel prices. Retrofits can add similar value across many ship types and with sufficient planning can typically be completed during a standard class-renewal dry docking.

The development of the marine low-GHG fuel market remains a key challenge. While significant progress has been made in expanding alternative-fuel capabilities of vessels, scaling fuel production depends on confidence that demand will materialize. DNV projects shipping demand for low-GHG fuels to range from 4 to 22 Mtoe by 2030 and 33 to 185 Mtoe by 2050, depending on regulatory outcomes, with uptake also shaped by future uptake of shore power, plug-in hybridization, nuclear power, and onboard carbon capture systems.

Current project pipelines indicate a maximum global supply of 270 Mtoe by 2030, although actual volumes are likely to be lower due to project delays and other uncertainties, and shipping will need to compete with other industries for its share. However, the cost of reducing emissions varies significantly between fuel pathways, with abatement costs ranging from about 180 to 1,290 USD per tonne of CO₂ avoided, highlighting the importance of regulation and market incentives in enabling low-GHG fuel markets to develop.

Øyvind Sekkesæter, lead author of Maritime Forecast to 2050, said: “Scenarios explored in this year’s report show how different regulatory futures can lead to very different outcomes in energy efficiency uptake, fuel demand, and consequently, GHG emissions. By testing fuel and technology choices across multiple scenarios, shipowners can identify strategies that create value today while preserving flexibility as regulation, fuel availability, prices, and technologies evolve. Strategies that each owner chooses will also be dependent on their fleet type and operating context.”

Key findings from the report: 

  • Several regulatory futures remain possible as the IMO continues negotiations on the Net-Zero Framework, with these outcomes shaping investment decisions, low-GHG fuel uptake, and energy-efficiency deployment across the global fleet.
  • With global regulatory incentives in place, the world-fleet could consume 25% less energy by 2050 than under a scenario limited to regional regulations.
  • Energy efficiency can pay off regardless of regulatory outcome – 5,000 TEU container ship case study shows 16% annual fuel savings from hydrodynamic measures retrofit.
  • Shipping demand for low-GHG fuels could range from 4 to 22 Mtoe by 2030, and 33 to 185 Mtoe by 2050, depending on regulatory outcomes and the availability of these fuels in a competitive global market.
  • Current project pipelines indicate that a maximum of 270 Mtoe of supply could be available by 2030, though actual volumes are likely to be lower due to project delays and other uncertainties, and shipping will need to compete with other industries for its share.
  • Testing fuel and technology strategies across different scenarios can help shipowners identify robust choices for an uncertain transition. Testing, piloting, and verifying technologies can provide the trusted performance data needed to make investment decisions with greater confidence.

Note: DNV’s 10th Maritime Forecast to 2050 can be found here. 

 

Photo credit: DNV
Published: 28 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Alternative Fuels

Green fuel bunkering part of Australia’s maritime emissions plan

Government will encourage and support investment in storage and bunkering facilities for low carbon fuels, shore power infrastructure and expansion of port energy capabilities.

Admin

Published

on

By

Sydney, Dan Freeman on Unsplash

The Australian Government on Wednesday (26 August) released the Maritime Emissions Reduction National Action Plan (MERNAP), outlining practical actions government and industry can take to continue decarbonisation of the maritime sector.

One of the actions highlighted in the plan include that the Australian Government will further promote and support the use of low carbon fuels in shipping to reduce the carbon footprint of transporting Australia’s green energy exports and the acceleration of the low carbon liquid fuels (LCLF) industry under programmes such as the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund.

Through a stocktake of programmes, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sports and the Arts, will flag the requirements of the maritime industry with relevant programmes. 

“This work will feed into the development of a bunkering strategy to help guide investment in green fuels,” it said. 

Announced in Budget 2026-27, the Australian Government is investing $4 million to develop a green fuel bunkering strategy, to prepare Australian ports to diversify the maritime fuel mix, supported by targeted industry trials and studies. It will help secure long-term resilience for the industry that carries more than 99% of Australia’s trade by volume.

The Government will also encourage and support investment in storage and bunkering facilities for low carbon fuels, shore power infrastructure and expansion of port energy capabilities.

The actions in the MERNAP have been deliberately developed to take account of the significant Australian Government investments in maritime and energy decarbonisation initiatives, including $4 million to develop a green fuel bunkering strategy. 

Stretching across ports, shipping, energy, domestic commercial vessels and skills and training, the MERNAP identifies key priority actions to support decarbonisation while recognising Australian shipping must remain competitive and prosperous in the international market

The MERNAP complements existing Australian Government incentives and policies including the $1.1 billion Cleaner Fuels Programme, the Green Fuel Bunkering Strategy, the $30 million Australia-Singapore Low-Emissions Technologies Initiative for Maritime and Port Operations, the $55 million Transport Resilience And Capacity Kickstart programme and the $13.8 million Maritime Skills and Training Initiative.

It also complements the country’s $100 million investment in a new Clean Energy Precinct at the Port of Newcastle, which is expected to facilitate production, storage, distribution and export of clean-energy products including hydrogen and ammonia.

Australia’s Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Catherine King, said: “The recent conflict in the Middle East has demonstrated to us how critical it is to build resilience and sustainability within our maritime industry.

“In a nation where our maritime sector is responsible for 99 per cent of our international trade, the MERNAP is a vital piece of our journey toward a sustainable future.

“It also presents an unparalleled opportunity to be a low and zero-carbon energy exporter of choice internationally, while creating new jobs and industry within the sustainable maritime sector locally.”

Note: The Australian Government’s Maritime Emissions Reduction National Action Plan can be read here

 

Photo credit: Dan Freeman on Unsplash
Published: 28 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending