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.

Shipowners and operators face the challenge of navigating multiple regulatory frameworks - EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime, and IMO Net-Zero - each employing distinct methodologies and emission factors for assessing fuel emissions. This blog provides clear guidance on the differing emission factors and calculation methods employed by each regulatory framework.

Accurate assessment of marine fuel costs is becoming increasingly critical as regulatory pressure grows, especially given the recently announced IMO Net-Zero Framework. This blog uses a VLSFO-equivalent cost model to evaluate the impact of FuelEU Maritime, EU ETS, and IMO Net-Zero regulations on a wide range of fuels. By comparing fossil, bio-based, and synthetic fuels under realistic scenarios, the analysis shows that compliance costs - driven by emissions penalties and carbon pricing - are expected to exceed fuel prices by 2030 for many options.

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.