Fuel selection is not only about emissions or cost - tank space often becomes the limiting factor. This article compares marine fuels by volumetric energy density (VLSFO as reference), shows why HFO/LFO have historically dominated, and why methanol is a practical alternative fuel from a ship design perspective. Methanol still requires roughly 2–2.5× the tank volume of conventional fuels, but performs better than ammonia or hydrogen for volume-constrained ships.

This Q&A session explores the role of low-carbon ammonia in decarbonizing the maritime industry, featuring Jean and Paul, co-founders of Ten08, a Houston-based company developing low-carbon ammonia for industrial and maritime use. Ten08’s mission is to supply the maritime sector with scalable and clean ammonia.

This case study analyzes 10 marine fuels using an HFO-equivalent model to determine their full lifecycle costs, including fuel prices and regulatory compliance costs, from 2025 to 2050. The results highlight a critical tipping point in 2040, driven by the FuelEU Maritime regulation increasing carbon intensity reduction targets sharply from 14.5% to 31%. This blog provides shipowners with guidance on how to navigate these evolving cost scenarios and maintain competitiveness to ensure future-proof investments.

This case study calculates and compares EU ETS and FuelEU compliance costs for three major shipping companies: CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and COSCO. From 2025 until 2050, these three companies will pay a total compliance cost of $54B (CMA CGM), $25B (Hapag-Lloyd) and $32B (COSCO).

This case study calculates and compares the compliance costs with regards to EU ETS and FuelEU for VLSFO, bio-methanol and e-ammonia. Results show that the averaged compliance costs for VLSFO between 2025 and 2050 are $966 per mT.