Biofuels, Batteries, and BS: What’s Really Working at Sea
📊 Subscribe to the Ship Universe Weekly Newsletter
In the race to decarbonize shipping, there’s no shortage of bold claims. Every other month, a new fuel, retrofit, or battery breakthrough grabs headlines. But ask around the docks or aboard a working vessel, and the mood is more cautious than celebratory. Between marketing hype and regulatory pressure, how can shipowners know what actually works and what’s just polished PR?
This report cuts through the noise. No sales pitches. Just a real look at what alternative energy solutions are delivering at sea and which are still floating on promises.
📣 Make sure to check out our new Maritime Decarbonization Calculator
We welcome your feedback, suggestions, corrections, and ideas for enhancements. Please click here to get in touch.
Green Methanol / Green Ammonia / Biofuels / Battery-Electric & Hybrid Systems / Wind Assist / LNG / Hydrogen / AI Routing
Regulatory Roulette: Are We Betting on Fuels That Won’t Scale?
In many cases, the fuels gaining momentum aren’t the best performers at sea, but the ones best positioned politically, especially in Brussels. With the IMO’s CII and EEXI metrics already in effect, and the EU’s carbon pricing and FuelEU Maritime directive coming online, the future of shipping fuels is being shaped as much by policy decisions as by engineering breakthroughs.
The real question is this: Are regulators steering the industry toward scalable, long-term solutions, or pushing us into costly detours that could simply be dead ends?
🧭 Quick Regulatory Rundown:
IMO’s Strategy: Carbon Intensity and Technical Ratings
- CII (Carbon Intensity Indicator): Ships graded A–E based on gCO₂/t·nm. Pushes operators to favor slower speeds, efficient designs, and greener fuels.
- EEXI (Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index): Sets a minimum energy efficiency threshold. Ships falling short may need power limitations or engine upgrades.
💡 Effect: Doesn’t directly penalize fuel type, but indirectly favors ships running cleaner fuels or with optimized propulsion.
EU ETS: Carbon Becomes a Bill
- Launched 2024 for shipping: Applies to 50% of emissions for voyages into/out of EU, and 100% for intra-EU trips.
- Price: ~€90 per tonne CO₂ in 2025.
- Fuel math impact: Burning 1 tonne of VLSFO (~3.1t CO₂) now comes with ~€280 in ETS cost.
💡 Effect: Operators are motivated to use low-carbon fuels or offset emissions favoring methanol, biofuel, LNG hybrids.
FuelEU Maritime (2025+)
- Sets a GHG intensity limit on onboard energy.
- Creates a “compliance credit” market where overperformers can sell credits.
- Mandates shore power use in major ports starting 2030.
💡 Effect: Directly rewards green fuels that reduce lifecycle GHG, biofuels, green methanol, green ammonia, e-methane.
The No-Fluff Rundown
📈 / 📉 Green Methanol
The Spin:
Green methanol is often hailed as the "Goldilocks" fuel — it’s carbon-neutral (if produced renewably), compatible with dual-fuel engines, and already being deployed by major carriers like Maersk and COSCO. It’s liquid at ambient temperature, making it easier to handle than ammonia or hydrogen.
The Catch:
Critics point to high production costs, a thin bunkering network, and concerns that the methanol in use today is mostly fossil-based. There's also debate over whether scaling green methanol fast enough is even possible, given current electrolyzer and biomass capacity.
⚖️ Risk vs Reward
The Reward:
If green methanol scales successfully, early adopters stand to gain a major edge. Ships that are already methanol-ready may qualify for regulatory credits, favorable financing, and premium charter rates. Companies like Maersk are positioning themselves as climate leaders, which also strengthens relationships with ESG-focused clients. Plus, dual-fuel engines offer flexibility if methanol prices or availability fluctuate.
The Risk:
But the gamble is real. Investing in methanol-capable ships without reliable access to green methanol could leave owners with high-cost vessels still burning fossil-based fuel — missing both regulatory targets and PR wins. There's also a supply-side risk: if green methanol production doesn't scale as fast as regulations tighten, owners could be caught in a high-cost, low-supply trap with limited alternatives.
📈 / 📉 Green Ammonia
The Spin:
Green ammonia is considered by many to be the ultimate zero-carbon marine fuel. It emits no CO₂ at the point of use, can be produced from renewable hydrogen, and aligns perfectly with long-term IMO and EU targets. Engine manufacturers like MAN and Wärtsilä are actively developing ammonia-capable engines, and major ports in Asia and Europe are preparing for future bunkering. For deep-sea shipping, ammonia is seen as a serious contender.
The Catch:
Despite the promise, ammonia is highly toxic and corrosive, posing serious risks for onboard safety and port handling. Its lower energy density means ships need more fuel storage volume, impacting cargo space. The fuel is also not yet commercially available at scale, and green production using renewable electricity remains costly and limited. Some insiders worry the tech won’t be ready fast enough for 2030 targets.
⚖️ Risk vs Reward
The Reward:
Green ammonia could be a long-term winner, offering a zero-carbon solution at scale for ocean-going vessels. If the tech matures and safety protocols evolve, early adopters could secure emissions leadership and benefit from regulatory credits and premium partnerships. The ability to tie into the broader hydrogen economy adds future-proofing for shipowners willing to invest early.
The Risk:
However, this is a high-risk bet. If ammonia infrastructure doesn’t scale fast enough or public safety concerns delay adoption, investors may end up with expensive, underutilized ships. Engine delays, crew resistance, or future restrictions due to toxicity could further complicate adoption. For now, it’s more of a moonshot than a sure thing.
📈 / 📉 Biofuels
The Spin:
Biofuels are often framed as the most practical near-term solution. They can be used in existing engines with little to no modification, making them a drop-in replacement for VLSFO or MGO. Fuels like FAME and HVO are already in use, especially in Europe, and they’re favored by regulators under the EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime. For shipowners looking to lower emissions today, biofuels offer a simple, scalable starting point — at least on paper.
The Catch:
Most biofuels are derived from crops, waste oils, or animal fats and that raises sustainability concerns. There's growing scrutiny over land use, food competition, and lifecycle emissions. Supply is another issue: current global production can’t meet future maritime demand. Also, biofuels have storage and stability challenges, and some engine manufacturers still issue conditional approvals. Costs remain higher than traditional fuels, and availability is uneven outside Europe.
⚖️ Risk vs Reward
The Reward:
Biofuels offer an easy entry point into decarbonization without the complexity of new engines or exotic bunkering. They allow shipowners to improve their CII rating, reduce emissions under EU ETS, and continue operating legacy vessels. For companies that want to act now, they’re arguably the most “plug-and-play” solution available.
The Risk:
But long-term reliance on biofuels could backfire. If regulations tighten around feedstock origin or carbon accounting, today’s compliant fuels may no longer qualify. Prices could spike as more industries compete for the same limited supply. And if infrastructure and global standardization don’t improve, biofuels might end up as a short-term patch instead of a lasting solution.
📈 / 📉 Battery-Electric & Hybrid Systems
The Spin:
Battery-electric propulsion is praised as the cleanest option available with zero emissions, ultra-quiet operation, and a perfect fit for regulatory hotspots like port zones and ECAs (Emission Control Areas). In Norway, battery-powered ferries are already replacing diesel fleets, and several shipyards are producing hybrid-electric systems for offshore vessels, tugboats, and short-sea ships. With port electrification expanding, batteries are seen as the future of local and regional shipping.
The Catch:
Range is the killer constraint. Current battery technology simply can’t support large-scale ocean voyages due to energy density limitations. Full-electric shipping is only viable for short-haul routes or harbor operations. Charging infrastructure is still sparse globally, and onboard battery systems take up valuable space and add weight. Safety, recycling, and lithium supply issues also pose long-term concerns.
⚖️ Risk vs Reward
The Reward:
Battery-electric systems are ideal for owners operating fixed, short-distance routes especially in regions offering subsidies or demanding clean port operations. They drastically cut emissions, reduce maintenance costs, and help vessels score high on CII and EEXI ratings. For hybrid vessels, batteries also reduce engine runtime and fuel use during slow-speed or maneuvering phases.
The Risk:
Going full-electric is risky for anything beyond coastal or inland use. Ships requiring high power or long endurance will run into severe space and weight limitations. Infrastructure is fragmented, and without grid upgrades or high-speed marine chargers, operational delays can pile up. Batteries are also capital-intensive and may need replacing within a decade, adding cost uncertainty.
📈 / 📉 Wind Assist
The Spin:
Wind propulsion is making a comeback with a modern twist. Technologies like Flettner rotors, rigid wing sails (like BAR’s WindWings), and high-altitude towing kites offer a promising way to slash fuel use by 10–30%, depending on conditions. These systems can be retrofitted to existing vessels, don’t require fuel infrastructure, and operate independently of onboard engines. With fuel prices rising and carbon penalties increasing, wind offers a “free” energy source that fits neatly into decarbonization strategies.
The Catch:
Performance is highly variable. Wind-assist technologies depend on vessel type, route, and weather patterns. Some shipowners are skeptical of the ROI, especially when retrofitting requires structural changes or alters loading operations. Maintenance and crew training are also considerations. And while they reduce fuel use, wind systems don’t count as fuel replacements, so they must still be paired with compliant energy sources under regulatory frameworks like FuelEU Maritime.
⚖️ Risk vs Reward
The Reward:
Wind-assist tech offers a rare combination: real-world results, low fuel dependency, and cross-fleet adaptability. Owners of bulkers and tankers, especially on long-haul routes, can see substantial fuel cost reductions and carbon savings with a payback period of 5-7 years. These systems also help improve CII ratings and future-proof ships against stricter emissions rules. In a fuel-uncertain world, the ability to harvest free energy is a valuable hedge.
The Risk:
Results are inconsistent with some ships seeing very strong gains, while others may struggle to justify the investment. If vessels operate in low-wind regions, or if retrofit impacts cargo handling, the financial return can diminish fast. Plus, because wind assist doesn’t replace fuel, it can’t be a standalone decarbonization solution under FuelEU Maritime. Without clear policy incentives or charterer demand, some owners may hesitate to commit.
📈 / 📉 LNG
The Spin:
LNG has long been promoted as a clean bridge fuel for maritime shipping. It offers immediate reductions in CO₂ emissions (up to 20%), virtually eliminates sulfur oxide emissions, and significantly lowers NOₓ. It’s mature, scalable, and backed by a well-developed global bunkering network. Hundreds of LNG-fueled ships are already in operation from cruise ships to ultra-large container vessels and new orders continue, especially in Asia and Europe.
The Catch:
LNG’s biggest issue is methane slip; unburned methane released into the atmosphere, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂. Critics argue that when methane slip is factored in, LNG may have little or no climate benefit over conventional fuels. Regulatory uncertainty is also growing, with EU and IMO discussions underway to penalize methane emissions more directly. And with green fuels gaining traction, some view LNG as a short-term solution that could soon face stranded asset risk.
⚖️ Risk vs Reward
The Reward:
LNG is proven, available, and compliant with existing emissions regulations. Shipowners using LNG today can meet sulfur and nitrogen caps without scrubbers, and reduce CO₂ to improve CII and EEXI scores. With the global bunkering network expanding, LNG offers a stable short-to-medium term path for lower-emission operations — especially for high-traffic vessels on fixed global routes.
The Risk:
Methane slip could derail LNG’s green image and draw regulatory penalties in the near future. If methane pricing rises or carbon penalties expand to include upstream and unburned gases, the economics may worsen. And since LNG is still a fossil fuel, ships built around it may face stranded value issues by 2035–2040, as stricter decarbonization targets phase in.
📈 / 📉 Hydrogen
The Spin:
Hydrogen is often described as the fuel of the future with zero emissions at the point of use, versatile across energy sectors, and a core pillar in many national climate strategies. In theory, it offers massive decarbonization potential for shipping, especially when produced using renewable electricity (green hydrogen). Its only byproduct during use is water vapor. Some pilot vessels and ports in Europe and Asia are already preparing for hydrogen trials, and classification societies are developing safety standards.
The Catch:
In practice, hydrogen has serious hurdles. Its volumetric energy density is low, requiring heavy, bulky storage, even more than LNG. Liquid hydrogen must be kept at cryogenic temperatures (-253°C), demanding complex and costly infrastructure. Compressing it takes enormous energy. Safety risks are significant, with a wide flammability range. And while green hydrogen production is scaling, it remains limited and expensive. For deep-sea shipping, hydrogen is still far from practical.
⚖️ Risk vs Reward
The Reward:
Hydrogen aligns perfectly with long-term zero-emission goals. If costs fall and infrastructure develops, it could play a major role in decarbonizing short-sea and even select long-haul trades. Ships that are hydrogen-ready may benefit from future carbon credits, green financing, and early regulatory incentives. Plus, its crossover into land and industrial sectors may help accelerate adoption.
The Risk:
Hydrogen is a high-capex, high-uncertainty bet. Without major breakthroughs in storage and safety, it's unlikely to scale for most of the global fleet. Owners who invest too early may face delays, fuel sourcing issues, and tech obsolescence. At best, it’s a long-term play and at worst, it could be leapfrogged by more practical alternatives like methanol or ammonia.
📈 / 📉 AI Routing
The Spin:
AI-powered routing tools are being embraced as a fast, cost-effective way to cut emissions and fuel costs without touching the engine. These systems use real-time weather, sea state, congestion data, and vessel-specific parameters to chart the most efficient course. No new fuel, no portside infrastructure, just smarter decisions, faster. Charterers and owners alike benefit from optimized ETA predictions, reduced fuel consumption, and improved compliance with emissions indexes like CII and EEXI.
The Catch:
While the tech is sound, savings are often modest on a per-voyage basis, usually 3–8% unless paired with other strategies like slow steaming or hybrid power. Results vary widely based on how well the AI is integrated with crew behavior and vessel systems. Not every operator uses the data effectively, and there’s growing fatigue around “dashboard overload.” For older ships or fragmented fleets, adoption is slower. And AI doesn’t replace compliance with alternative fuel mandates, it only supports them.
⚖️ Risk vs Reward
The Reward:
AI-driven routing is one of the lowest-risk, lowest-cost ways to reduce fuel burn and improve emissions scores. It’s easy to deploy, doesn’t require new equipment, and pays for itself quickly through fuel savings. For ships running consistent trades or tight schedules, even modest percentage gains translate into thousands in cost reductions and cleaner performance metrics.
The Risk:
However, without buy-in from crews and integration with onboard systems, results may fall flat. It won’t help meet decarbonization mandates on its own, and overreliance on software can create decision fatigue or errors if inputs are wrong. It’s a great assist, but not a replacement for real fuel innovation.
Closing Thoughts
There’s no silver bullet in maritime decarbonization. Each of the leading solutions; from methanol to wind assist to AI optimization, brings a different mix of readiness, complexity, and risk. Some, like biofuels and route optimization, offer low-friction gains today. Others, like green ammonia or hydrogen, promise deeper carbon cuts but come with bigger bets and longer timelines.
The real takeaway? Shipowners and operators can’t afford to wait for perfect tech. The pressure from regulators, charterers, and financiers is mounting fast, and the winners will be those who blend short-term action with long-term positioning. That might mean using AI to trim fuel use now while ordering dual-fuel ships for the future, or testing wind systems as a hedge while waiting for scalable green fuels.
Decarbonization won’t be a straight line, it will be a patchwork of strategies that evolve by vessel type, trade route, and budget. The key is to move with intent, stay informed, and remain flexible as the regulatory and fuel landscapes shift.
Shipowners must be ready to adapt with purpose, but in a market full of noise, clarity and caution are competitive advantages.
