This case study compares three compliance strategies for FuelEU (paying the penalty (business as usual), buying pool credits from a third party, and blending biofuels) for a representative 4-ship fleet over 2026–2040. Results show that pooling and biofuels both beat business as usual by 6–7%, but it is a coin toss on which is better for you. The outcome is highly sensitive to B100 price and tightens structurally in favour of biofuels after 2030, making this a tipping-point question rather than a one-off choice.

This FAQ provides essential answers on grid balancing markets (FCR, aFRR, mFRR), trading markets (day-ahead, intraday), and congestion management. Covers prequalification timelines, revenue ranges, operator roles, technical requirements, and more. It is intended for developers and asset owners in Northwest Europe.

Batteries can earn money from the grid in three ways: balancing (steady capacity fees), trading (price spreads), and congestion management (local activation). But grid services are fragmented by country, operator, and product: what works in the Netherlands doesn't work in Germany. This guide shows energy storage developers how to stack these three revenue streams for maximum ROI. Intended for developers in port environments.

Every regulator, classification society, broker, and data provider has its own ship-type taxonomy: the same vessel can be a Ro-pax ship to EU MRV, a Cruise Passenger Ship under IMO MARPOL Annex VI, and simply a Passenger ship in a Clarksons fleet report. None of the labels is wrong; they are the working vocabulary of different communities. This blog provides guidance by harmonizing them into the ‘Sustainable Ships framework’: 20 categories, 72 types, and 52 sizes.

Shipping companies face a growing set of regulatory obligations (EU ETS, UK ETS, FuelEU Maritime, and IMO Net-Zero) that directly affect operating costs. This case study determines these costs for a representative fleet of eight Greek dry bulk vessels, calculating exposure under EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime and IMO Net-Zero from 2026 to 2050. The fleet faces a total compliance cost of $4.1 billion over the analysis period, escalating from $30 million in 2026 to $ 362 million in 2050.

This case study explores the retrofit of the crude oil shuttle tanker Toril Knutsen to use onshore power supply (OPS) during port stays. The analysis assesses onboard retrofit requirements, power demand at berth, CAPEX, and the resulting business case. Total CAPEX is estimated at around $4M for a conservative tanker-specific configuration. Payback can fall in the range of 1 to 4 years, with most value driven by reduced FuelEU, EU ETS, and IMO-related compliance costs.

Reefers (Refrigerated Containers) increase power demand onboard container ships by approximately 4.38 kW per reefer container. The implication is material: even a relatively small share of reefers can account for a disproportionately large share of total berth power demand. Realtime measurements show that even when 1% of all containers onboard a ship are reefers, it can consume almost 20% of the ship’s total energy demand.

If shore power projects were easy, every port would already have them. Instead, developers run into the same fundamental challenges: unpredictable vessel power demand, complex infrastructure decisions, and business cases full of question marks. In this blog we look at those problems, and how our tools help you tackle them.

AFIR and FuelEU Maritime make the use of onshore power supply (OPS) effectively mandatory but say nothing about what it should cost or how it should be priced. The result is a patchwork of tariff designs and varying levels of transparency, making like-for-like comparisons difficult for shipowners and operators. This blog aims to provide at least some guidance on the matter.

With shipping now included in EU ETS, carbon prices are becoming a major cost driver for maritime transport. As the total amount of emission allowances gradually decreases, prices are expected to rise over time. Many projections assume an increase of roughly 7% per year, potentially reaching €400–€500 per tonne of CO₂ in the long term.

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.

When is it more cost-effective to use a B30 or HV30 blend as opposed to regular MDO? This article breaks down the economics of MDO versus biodiesel and HVO blends by comparing VLSFO equivalent costs of fuel over a range of EUA price scenarios. Results indicate that it becomes attractive to use blends at EUA prices above €85.

Accurate estimation of shore power demand at EU ports has become essential due to strict regulations like AFIR, which requires electrification for 90% of port calls by container and passenger ships at TEN-T ports by 2030. This blog evaluates three methods—using EU MRV fuel data, Sustainable Ships’ ship-specific power database, and ICCT research—to estimate the Total Addressable Market (TAM) for shore power. Results show the total annual electricity demand across EU ports is between approximately 6 and 13 TWh, highlighting the significant scale of infrastructure investment ahead.

This case study explores a 100 kWp solar PV system installed on the hatch covers of a handymax bulk carrier. Operating primarily in Northern Europe, the system offsets auxiliary engine load during idle periods, leading to estimated savings of ~$350,000 between 2025 and 2035. With a CAPEX of $100,000, the payback period is around three years. Most savings come from fuel reduction, with additional benefits from EU ETS and FuelEU compliance. The business case is most sensitive to engine efficiency (SFC) and fuel price.

Accurate estimates of containership power demand are becoming increasingly critical due to stringent regulations, such as FuelEU Maritime, in combination with technical complexities. Ship power demand varies significantly depending on size, onboard equipment installed, and operational profile. These uncertainties places considerable pressure on terminal owners, port authorities, and developers to design and implement shore power infrastructure. This blog aims to provide guidance on this issue.

This case study determines the impact of FuelEU Maritime on a shore power refit for a RoRo Cargo ship under multiple loading and operational conditions. Pending on the amount of days connected to the grid and the average load while moored, it is estimated that shore power can save €250,000 per year.

This case study also examines a general cargo ship with an auxiliary engine of 116 kW that is outfitted with a battery to make it a ‘battery hybrid’ while at berth. Again the battery pack powers the ship for several hours while idling or moored and is recharged using the auxiliary engines. This time however, engine load is varied in different loading scenarios to determine the impact of different operational profiles on the business case.

This case study examines a general cargo ship with an auxiliary engine of 116 kW that is outfitted with a battery to make it a ‘battery hybrid’ while at berth. The battery pack powers the ship for several hours while idling or moored and is recharged using the auxiliary engines. Cost savings generally occur with an average engine load below 50%, but are mostly dependent on engine maintenance costs, spares and consumables as well as total battery pack costs.

This is a case study that determines the impact of FuelEU Maritime on a shore power refit business case up to 2050, taking several ships and varying input parameters to determine the impact under multiple conditions. As FuelEU Maritime will make shore power mandatory in 2030 for passenger- and containerships, this tool will help to determine the impact of that regulation on your business case.

This is a techno-economic case study that provides guidance for decarbonizing a feeder by means of a shore power refit. Shore power will be made mandatory by 2030 for these ship types as per FuelEU Maritime regulation. A step-by-step approach is given to estimate costs, analyse technical feasibility, and create a business case for the shore power refit in general.