A Comparison of Alternative Fuels for Shipping in Terms of Lifecycle Energy and Cost

Decarbonization of the shipping sector is inevitable and can be made by transitioning into low- or zero-carbon marine fuels. This paper reviews 22 potential pathways, including conventional Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) fuel as a reference case, “blue” alternative produced from natural gas, “green” fuels biomass solar energy. Carbon capture technology (CCS) installed for fossil (HFO liquefied gas (LNG)). The pathways are compared in terms quantifiable parameters (i) mass, (ii) volume, (iii) life cycle (Well-To-Wake—WTW) energy intensity, (iv) WTW cost, (v) greenhouse (GHG) emission, (vi) non-GHG emissions, estimated literature ASPEN HYSYS modelling. From an perspective, renewable electricity with battery most efficient route, albeit still impractical long-distance due to low density today’s batteries. next best CCS (assuming 90% removal efficiency), which also happens lowest cost solution, although long-term storage utilization CO2 unresolved. Biofuels offer good compromise availability, readiness level (TRL); however, emissions not eliminated. Hydrogen ammonia among worst overall needed may need NOx clean-up measures. Methanol LNG needs decarbonization, while methanol does not, seems candidate energy, financial TRL. present analysis consistently compares various options useful stakeholders involved decarbonization.