Energy Transition Outlook 2023

MARITIME
FORECAST
TO 2050

A deep dive into shipping’s

decarbonization journey
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

FOREWORD
This is a critical decade for setting our industry decisively on course for net zero. and could compete with other decarbonization CAPEX decisions and prevent assets from becoming
The UN Secretary-General’s warning that we are entering an era of ‘global boiling’ fuel strategies. There are caveats – there is a long unprofitable. Flexibility is key. Everything should be
road to travel before nuclear can be scaled, and considered – fuels, digital tools, fleet deployment
should ring an alarm bell also on the bridge.
a long logistics chain still needs to be developed and optimization – in seeking individually tailored
for onboard carbon capture – but we should still strategies for collective industry gain.
Shipping’s decarbonization is underway slowly like The report predicts that meeting the IMO GHG goal evaluate these and other technologies to explore
a supertanker coming about. That is clear from our for 2030 will require shipping to secure 30–40% of alternative pathways. Collaboration is needed to ensure that future fuel
latest Maritime Forecast to 2050 showing promising the estimated annual global supply of carbon-neutral supply, infrastructure, and investment decisions are
rising orders for new ships able to run on lower- fuels by then – a daunting, nearly impossible task An expected shortfall in carbon-neutral fuels appropriate. Decarbonization of shipping will come
carbon fuel options, but very few operating vessels considering that other sectors will compete for the drives us to widen our scope and explore with significant costs, costs that cannot be absorbed
doing so. same fuel supply. Thus, whatever can be achieved all available fuel options. So, Maritime by single stakeholders, being shipowners or
to reduce energy consumption is a no-brainer. Forecast to 2050 presents a detailed governments. New contractual arrangements will
At MEPC 80, governments acknowledged this, Operational energy-efficiency measures like speed analysis of liquefied hydrogen, an likely be needed in order to have the additional
leading to the IMO’s revised greenhouse gas reduction, route optimization, and hull and propeller energy source which could become costs allocated through the value chain and
strategy driving accelerated net-zero ambitions. cleaning should be implemented wherever possible. a viable option. eventually reaching the end consumer. Maritime
Moreover, ship emissions will be priced through the Forecast to 2050 details how green shipping
EU Emissions Trading System from 2024. ‘Smart’ and digital systems on individual vessels Regulatory change, and stake- corridors can speed up change by piloting on
and fleets offer high rewards through operational holder and public pressure to a smaller, manageable scale. Successful green
The clock is ticking louder on efforts to identify, efficiencies. Innovative air lubrication systems and decarbonize, will impact commercial corridors may inspire global actions.
define, and resolve barriers to successful and safe wind-assisted propulsion can boost efficiency and boundary conditions. It thus makes
decarbonization. Complex and costly decisions form reduce fuel consumption. Maritime Forecast to 2050 business sense to ensure Together, we can make this decade decisive
the backdrop for ship designs, propulsion systems, reviews their status and quantifies reported and sound long-term for maritime decarbonization.
and fuel sourcing. potential benefits. There is also an urgent need for
low-emission technologies for environmental benefits
The best strategy will hinge on many parameters, and as alternatives to carbon-neutral fuels that looks
such as vessel size and trading pattern. Yet prag- likely to become costly and hard-to-source.
matism and a defined pathway for the vessel’s life
will be key to avoid unattractive or stranded assets. Accordingly, Maritime Forecast to 2050 runs the Knut Ørbeck-Nilssen
To support investment decisions, Maritime Forecast numbers on carbon capture and nuclear propulsion CEO Maritime
to 2050, produced from broad industry sources and technology versus existing and future marine fuels.
DNV modelling, focuses both on challenges and Under some conditions, both onboard carbon DNV
possible actions. capture and nuclear look feasible operationally

2
CONTENTS

Foreword 2 4.3.3 Wind-assisted propulsion systems 31 8 Green shipping corridors for accelerating
4.3.4 Air lubrication systems 33 the uptake of carbon-neutral fuels 56
1 Executive summary 4
8.1 What is a green shipping corridor? 57
4.3.5 Onboard carbon capture and storage  34
2 Introduction 8 8.2 DNV’s stepwise approach assists stakeholders
4.3.6 Nuclear propulsion 36
starting out on green shipping corridors 60
3 Outlook on drivers and regulations for decarbonization 10
3.1 Regulatory developments 12 5 Outlook on alternative fuel production and demand 38
Appendix65
3.1.1 International Maritime Organization 12 5.1 Existing fuel-supply chain 39 A.1 Fuel production standards 65
3.1.2 European Union  14 5.2 Demand for carbon-neutral fuels in shipping 40 A.2 Well-to-wake emission factors 66
3.1.3 United States  16 5.3 Supply of carbon-neutral fuels 41 A.3 Biofuels 67
3.1.4 China 17 5.4 Outlook on infrastructure for carbon-neutral fuels 43 A.3.1 Potential biofuel supply 67
3.2 Well-to-wake GHG emissions A.3.2 Practical considerations of biofuel use 67
and sustainability of fuels 18 6 A lifecycle perspective on shipping emissions
taking into account fuel production 44 References70
3.3 Net-zero emission shipping services 20
6.1 Addressing GHG emissions from fuel production 45
Endnotes71
4 Outlook on ship technologies and fuels 22 6.2 Projection of well-to-wake emissions to 2050 46
4.1 Status of fuel technology transition 24
4.2 Outlook for the availability of fuel competence 7 Techno-economic evaluation of onboard
and readiness of safe operational practices 26 carbon capture and nuclear propulsion 48
4.3 Ship technologies and fuels for decarbonization 29 7.1 Case study – 15,000 TEU container vessel  50
4.3.1 Solid oxide fuel cell 29 7.2 Onboard carbon capture 52
Click on the section
4.3.2 Liquefied hydrogen  30 7.3 Nuclear propulsion 54 you want to explore !

3
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

Maritime Forecast to 2050 is one out of DNV’s What we did

suite of Energy Transition Outlook reports. This We present an updated outlook on a range of regu-
FIGURE 1-1
latest edition provides an independent outlook of lations and drivers for decarbonization of shipping;
Alternative fuel uptake in the world fleet by gross tonnage
shipping’s energy future. It also examines how the the most important being the new IMO ambitions,
industry will be impacted by: new International the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) carbon SHIPS IN OPERATION SHIPS ON ORDER
Maritime Organization (IMO) ambitions for reducing price, and coming well-to-wake regulations. The
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shipping; the revised IMO GHG strategy now aims for reaching 93.5% 48.7%
conventional conventional
regulations that will be developed as a follow-up; net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. The EU ETS will World fuel fuel Order
and by recently adopted EU regulations. for the first time in international shipping set a price fleet book
on ship GHG emissions, a development that could
The impact will be increased costs for individual be adopted in other regions or even globally by the
shipowners from technology, carbon-neutral fuels, IMO. Coming ‘well-to-wake’ regulations will impose
and/or carbon price. Commercial drivers will also requirements on fuel production. We calculate
6.52% Total 51.3% Total
be important, as GHG performance will affect the total GHG emissions from shipping towards
commercial attractiveness and long-term profit- 2050 in a decarbonization scenario, which shows
ability. This will have a large effect on shipowner that without well-to-wake regulations and fuel
decarbonization plans and fuel strategies. The most production standards, the emissions will be trans-
5.96% 0.26% 0.25% 0.05% 40.3% 8.01% 2.24% 0.80%
important steps towards zero-emission shipping ferred to other sectors. LNG Battery/Hybrid LPG Methanol LNG Methanol LPG Battery/Hybrid
should be taken now in what will be a decisive Sources: IHSMarkit (ihsmarkit.com) and DNV’s Alternative Fuels Insights for the shipping industry – AFI platform (afi.dnv.com)
decade for shipping. A fuel technology transition is already underway
in the maritime industry, with half the ordered
tonnage capable of using LNG, LPG, or methanol
in dual-fuel engines, compared to one third of the
tonnage on order last year. For ships in operation,
6.52% of tonnage can now operate on alternative technology to reduce both energy consumption wind-assisted propulsion systems have now been
A fuel technology transition is already fuels, compared to 5.5% last year. The uptake and the need for expensive fuel will be important. installed on 28 large vessels. Air lubrication systems
of methanol and LPG is starting to show in the Given the need to understand and have a clear are installed on or ordered for more than 250 vessels
underway in the maritime industry, with statistics together with the first hydrogen-fuelled view of all the options, we present an outlook on six in total.
half the ordered tonnage capable of newbuilds. Though several demonstration projects selected technologies that are receiving increased
using LNG, LPG, or methanol in dual-fuel for ammonia-fuelled ships are ongoing, there are attention in the industry: solid oxide fuel cells, Considering onboard carbon capture and nuclear
no ammonia-fuelled ships in the official order book. liquefied hydrogen, wind-assisted propulsion, air propulsion, we have performed a feasibility study
engines, compared to one third of the lubrication systems, onboard carbon capture, and using the FuelPath model of a 15,000 TEU container
tonnage on order last year. While the fuel technology transition gathers pace, nuclear propulsion. With the industry seeing ener- vessel as a case, benchmarking against fuel oil,
the search for solutions continues. We know that gy-saving technologies as increasingly important, LNG, methanol and ammonia. We find that onboard

5
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

carbon capture can be operationally feasible for a solution for the case-study ship, with a reactor and challenge. Currently, only 0.1% of fuels used by production volume will be required to supply the
large container vessel using 4,000 cubic metres (m³) gensets for redundancy and take-me-home func- merchant shipping are biofuels, while 99.9% are shipping sector.
of carbon dioxide (CO2) storage on board, offloading tionality. We find that nuclear propulsion can be a fossil fuels. We present a new and comprehensive
CO2 twice per trip Asia-Europe, and annually competitive option if reactor costs are in the lower global database of more than 2,200 existing and As the shipping industry will compete for carbon-
capturing 70% of the carbon dioxide. If the increase range of historical costs for land-based nuclear planned production plants for relevant fuels: all neutral fuels with aviation and road transportation,
in energy use to capture the CO2 can be kept below power plants. biofuels, methanol, ammonia, hydrogen, including as well as other industries, the production of carbon-
15%, and if the cost for offloading, transporting, bio-, electro-, and blue versions of all fuels. We neutral fuel alternatives needs to significantly accel-
and sequestering the CO2 is below 40 USD/tonne, While energy saving will reduce the need for alter- find that the probability-adjusted global cross- erate if the emission-reduction goals are to be met.
onboard carbon capture can be a competitive option native fuels, and both nuclear and onboard carbon sector production volume in 2030 is between 44 The period of ramping up production of different
for decarbonization. capture may alleviate the need for such fuels, and 62 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe). carbon-neutral fuels may come with uncertainty
we still see that large volumes of carbon-neutral The estimated demand for carbon-neutral fuel in supply, and price fluctuations are therefore
There are 160, mostly naval, nuclear-powered vessels fuels will be needed to decarbonize shipping, and in shipping is 17 Mtoe in 2030, meaning that expected. Thus, fuel flexibility will be key for ship-
today, and we find that it is a technically feasible that the production of these fuels will be a key 30% to 40% of our estimated global cross-sector owners to navigate these uncharted waters.

FIGURE 1-2 FIGURE 1-3

Annual cost range of onboard carbon capture and storage – Low and High scenarios Net present value, Annual cost range of nuclear – Low and High scenarios Net present value,
8% discount rate 8% discount rate
Units: Million US dollars (MUSD) Units: MUSD Units: Million US dollars (MUSD) Units: MUSD
65 500 65 500
Nuclear high
60 480 60 480
▪ Fuel oil 1 1
55 ▪ LNG 460 55 460
▪ Methanol
▪ Ammonia ▪ Fuel oil
50 2 440 50 2 440
▪ LNG
3 ▪ Methanol 3
45 CCS high 420 45 ▪ Ammonia 420
40 4 400 40 4 400
CCS low Nuclear low
35 380 35 380
5 5
30 360 30 360
25 340 25 340
20 320 20 320
15 300 15 300
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 1=maximum, 2=75th percentile, 3=median,
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 1=maximum, 2=75th percentile, 3=median,
4=25th percentile, 5=minimum 4=25th percentile, 5=minimum

6
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

In addition to the lack of supply of carbon-neutral At the approach’s core is identifying barriers to
fuels, there are other important barriers to decar- achieving viable business cases for green shipping
FIGURE 1-5
bonizing shipping. Examples include lack of infra- corridor partners. FIGURE 1.5 from initial idea to realization of a green shipping corridor
Main phases
structure, novel safety risks, lack of competence, Main phases from initial idea to realization of a green shipping corridor
immature technology and high costs. A shipowner navigating these uncharted waters
should consider all available decarbonization
This report presents an outlook on green shipping options, focusing on reduced energy consumption
corridors. These can accelerate uptake of carbon- and fuel flexibility in the short term, while also
neutral fuels by allowing barriers to be identified considering a long-term fuel sourcing strategy.
and overcome in a more targeted and practicable
way than on a global scale. We provide a three-step The 2020s is a decisive decade for shipping and the
approach for stakeholders within the value chain quality and effectiveness of plans put in place now
aiming to establish green shipping corridors. It is will dictate how successful the maritime industry is in Green ammonia-powered bulk carrier Shipowner Egil Ulvan’s With Orca ASKO MARITIME’s zero-emission
based on DNV’s experience over a decade with reaching its decarbonization goals over the coming Pilot initiated by the Green Shipping Aims to be the first zero-emission self- autonomous cargo ferries
already existing green shipping corridors in Norway. decades. Programme, and led by the Grieg discharging hydrogen-fuelled bulk Two fully-electric cargo ferries
Group, investigates ammonia as fuel on carrier, planned to enter a long-term operating between Moss and Horten
their L-class Open-hatch bulk ship transport contract with cargo owners in the Oslofjord in Norway carrying
operating deep-sea. The pilot study is Felleskjøpet Agri and Heidelberg groceries for NorgesGruppen. Initially,
FIGURE 1-4 finalized, and several gaps hindering Cement. This project started as a pilot the ships will sail with a limited crew,
realization have been identified. These study facilitated by the Green Shipping with the goal that these vessels in
Estimated supply of carbon-neutral fuel
need to be closed before contracts can Programme. the future will be operated completely
be signed. autonomously, and monitoring provid-
Units: Million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe)
3% Ship- ed from shore in Horten. This project
70 ping’s was initially a pilot project in the
High share of Green Shipping Programme.

60 global
energy
use,
50 280
Estimated supply of Mtoe Our three-
carbon-neutral fuels to all sectors step approach
40 Low
Other Action plan for Final corridor Contracts Vessel(s) in
97% indus- closing the gaps concept signed operation
30 tries

20 Phases Feasibility Development Execution

Estimated demand from

10 Estimated
shipping for carbon-neutral fuels time 1–2 years 1–3 years 2–3 years

0
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

7
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

2
INTRODUCTION

8
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

2 INTRODUCTION

This publication is part of DNV’s 2023 suite of Energy Transition Outlook (ETO) reports. Next year, the EU will implement a carbon price for with updated outlooks on ship technologies and
This latest Maritime Forecast to 2050 provides an independent outlook of shipping’s shipping. fuels for decarbonization; the availability of compe-
energy future and examines how the technology and energy transition will affect the tence (Chapter 4); and on fuel production and
New technologies and fuel production need to be infrastructure, estimating the future availability of
industry. We investigate fuel production, technology, and green shipping corridors to
developed for shipping to meet its decarbonization carbon-neutral fuels (Chapter 5). We present calcu-
tackle the shift to carbon-neutral fuels. We also provide a valuable mapping of present goals. In addition, standards for fuel production and lations illustrating the necessity of forthcoming
and planned production of carbon-neutral1 fuels. well-to-wake emissions are required to avoid shifting well-to-wake GHG regulations and fuel production
emissions to other sectors. standards (Chapter 6). We also describe a case
The pressure to decarbonize is rising as people and study of a large container vessel using two selected
governments increasingly acknowledge the chal- With this in mind, this report starts by presenting technologies, nuclear propulsion and onboard
lenges from anthropogenic climate change. This an updated outlook on drivers and regulations, carbon capture (Chapter 7). Finally, we present a
year, for example, the IMO has increased its ambi- focusing on the new IMO ambitions and well- practical approach for establishing green shipping
tions for reducing GHG emissions from shipping. to-wake GHG emissions (Chapter 3). It proceeds corridors (Chapter 8).

9
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

3
OUTLOOK ON DRIVERS
AND REGULATIONS FOR
DECARBONIZATION
Highlights
We analyse new IMO and EU regulatory changes as well as US and
Chinese policies that may impact maritime globally, finding that:
– 2023 has seen significant regulatory developments by the IMO,
with the goal of reaching net zero by 2050, and by the EU, with
new legislation. Policies in the US and China may impact the
maritime sector globally.
– Well-to-wake greenhouse gas emissions and fuel sustainability
credentials become important to avoid unintended emission
increases in other sectors.
– Some shipping companies now offer net-zero emission services
in response to cargo owners needing to decarbonize their
operations.
– A book-and-claim system could speed uptake of carbon-
neutral fuels, enlarging the market by allowing those with no
access to physical fuel products to buy reduction claims.

10
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

frameworks and sta

porting nda
rds
Sup
2023 has seen major decisions regarding GHG ambitions and regulations. The IMO has
revised its GHG Strategy, strengthening the ambitions for international shipping. The new
targets include a 20% reduction in emissions by 2030, a 70% reduction by 2040 (compared
with 2008 levels), and the ultimate goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. New regu- Regulations
lations are expected to enter into force around mid-2027. The EU has agreed to include and policies

shipping in its Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) from 2024 and on setting requirements
on well-to-wake GHG emissions (FuelEU Maritime) from 2025.

Access
Expectations of to investors and
We expect three key fundamentals – regulations and Well-to-wake fuel standards are maturing, setting cargo owners and capital

policies, access to investors and capital, and cargo- the necessary framework for producing and using consumers

owner and consumer expectations – to drive ship sustainable fuels in shipping.

decarbonization through the 2020s and beyond
(Figure 3-1). They are supported by frameworks and This chapter first presents upcoming regulations
standards specifying sustainability evaluation criteria on GHGs from the IMO and the EU, then discusses
and targets, GHG emission calculation methods, and shipping-relevant policies in the US and China, repre-
reporting requirements. senting two major global economies. Other interna-
tional agreements will also contribute to drive devel-
Regulations and policies remain the key drivers for opments, among them the Clydebank Declaration
decarbonization of shipping through direct require- for green shipping corridors (see Chapter 8), but are
ments for ships and shipping companies. The last not discussed further in this chapter. We then take a
FIGURE 3-1
year has seen the inclusion of shipping in the EU closer look at the framework and standards for calcu-
Three key fundamentals are driving ship
ETS and a well-to-wake GHG requirement (FuelEU lating well-to-wake GHG emissions, before outlining decarbonization, supported by frame-
Maritime). Net-zero emission shipping services how shipping companies offer net-zero emission works and standards specifying sustain-
ability evaluation criteria and targets,
are being offered as a response to cargo owners’ services and the need for book-and-claim systems. GHG emission calculation methods, and
requirements to decarbonize their own operations, reporting requirements
creating a market pull for sustainable biofuels.

11
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

3.1 Regulatory developments

3.1.1 International Maritime Organization

In July 2023, the IMO completed the first revision target to achieve an uptake of zero or near-zero shipping and preventing a shift of emissions to emissions pricing mechanism, potentially linked
of its GHG strategy.2 It significantly strengthened GHG emissions technologies, fuels and/or energy other sectors. directly to the GHG-intensity mechanism. The
the ambitions for international shipping compared sources, representing at least 5% of the energy development of the measures will continue at the
with the initial strategy’s ambition for a 50% GHG used by international shipping, while striving for To ensure that shipping reaches these ambitions, IMO and will, according to the agreed timeline,
reduction by 2050. The revised strategy outlined in 10%. the IMO has decided to implement a basket of be adopted in 2025 and enter into force in around
Figure 3-2 and taking 2008 as a baseline now aims measures consisting of two parts. First, a tech- mid-2027.
to reduce well-to-wake GHG emissions by 20% in The GHG strategy now also addresses lifecycle nical element which will be a goal-based marine
2030, while striving for 30%; then for 70% by 2040, GHG emissions from shipping, with the overall fuel standard regulating the phased reduction of The implementation of the Carbon Intensity Indi-
while striving for 80%; and to reach net-zero ’by objective of reducing GHG emissions within the marine fuel GHG intensity. Second, an economic cator (CII), Ship Energy Efficiency Management
or around, i.e. close to, 2050‘. There is also a 2030 boundaries of the energy system of international element which will be some form of maritime GHG Plan (SEEMP) and Energy Efficiency Existing Ship

FIGURE 3-2
Outline of ambitions and minimum indicative checkpoints in the revised IMO GHG strategy
Units: GHG emissions
Emission pathway
in line with IMO’s
revised GHG strategy
Emission pathway
2008 as
base year Peak as soon in line with IMO’s
as possible 2018 GHG strategy

Total: Business-as-usual
20% reduction emissions

Intensity: Emission gap

40% reduction

Fuel: Net-zero
5% energy share Total:
70% reduction GHG emissions
by 2050

2008 2020 2030 2040 2050

Total: Well-to-wake GHG emissions; Intensity: CO2 emitted per transport work; Fuel: Uptake of zero or near-zero GHG technologies, fuels and/or energy sources

12
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

FIGURE3.3
FIGURE 3-3
For any emission reduction to be GHGregulatory
GHG regulatorytimeline
timeline towards
towards 2030
2030

recog­nized, it is important to have assurance

2023 2024 2025 2026 2027–
that the CO2 is delivered to a facility that
Revised Data
ensures that it is permanently stored. EEXI Collection System:
EEDI phase 3
(all ship types)
CII rating
An internationally recognized certifi­cation
scheme is likely to be needed. Adopted FuelEU Maritime –
Enhanced SEEMP EU ETS for
regulations GHG fuel standard
and CII Rating shipping
(well-to-wake)

Revised Data
Collection System: IMO carbon price
cargo data,
Index (EEXI) is well underway, and the last year detailed outlook on the technology. Today, there more granular
has seen only minor updates on related guide- are no incentives to use onboard carbon capture consumption data
IMO GHG fuel
lines. Recognizing the significant interest in the as it does not count against any IMO requirements. standard
In the
use of biofuels, the IMO also agreed that certified The application of onboard carbon capture will (well-to-wake)
pipeline,
sustainable biofuels with at least 65% less well- be incorporated in the IMO Lifecyle Assessment or possible
regulations
to-wake GHG emission compared with fossil fuel (LCA) guidelines, though further discussions are Black carbon
and VOC
can use a reduced CO2 -emission factor under the needed to address regulatory barriers, in particular
Data Collection System (DCS) and CII.3 Several those related to the fate of the captured carbon.
challenges with the CII – related in particular to The climate effect will depend on the amount
ships with long period of waiting, port stay, and of carbon captured and permanently stored. IMO LCA
Comprehensive Feasibility of
guidelines for fuels CII and EEXI review including ships
stationary operations – have been identified, but no For any emission reduction to be recognized, it (first version)
impact assessment
<5 000 GT in EU ETS
further updates to the CII framework will be made is important to have assurance that the CO2 is
at this time. The review of the regulation will be delivered to a facility that ensures that it is perma-
Processes IMO Revised
completed by the end of 2025. nently stored. An internationally recognized certifi- GHG Strategy
cation scheme is likely to be needed.
Onboard carbon capture and storage (CCS) has Key: Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII); Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI); Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI); Emission Trading
seen increased interest as a possible solution for Figure 3-3 summarizes the regulatory timeline System (ETS); Lifecycle Assessment (LCA); Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP); Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

decarbonizing shipping. Section 4.3.5 provides a towards 2030 that is described in this chapter.

13
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

3.1.2 European Union

The EU has through the European Climate Law4 set

legally binding targets to reduce emissions by 55% in
2030 relative to 1990 and to become climate-neutral
by 2050. The EU also sees this as an opportunity to
decouple economic growth from resource use to
create opportunities for industry in clean technology
and solutions. The Green Deal is a blueprint for the
change required to reach these ambitions, and the
Fit for 55 legislative package proposed in 2021 is a
key part of this plan.5

Two of these pieces of legislation, the EU

ETS and FuelEU Maritime, set specific
requirements for ships. The EU has
adopted a revision of the EU ETS which
will include shipping from 2024.6 It is an
emission cap-and-trade system where a
limited amount of emission allowances – the
cap – is put on the market and can be traded.
The cap is reduced each year, in line with the EU’s
2030 target for a 55% emissions reduction relative
to 1990, and with climate-neutrality by 2050. A ship
above 5,000 gross tonnage (GT) transporting cargo
or passengers for commercial purposes in the EU
will be required to acquire and surrender emission
allowances for its GHG emissions from 2024 as
reported through the Monitoring, Reporting and
Verification (MRV) scheme. By the 31st of March each
year, starting in 2025, a verified company emissions
report needs to be submitted to the administering
authority of the company. The company emission

14
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

report aggregates the emissions within the scope was around EUR 90 per tonne of carbon dioxide. Although it is the shipping company (i.e. the ship requirements take effect from 2025 and will over
of the EU ETS, reported and verified for each ship This would add EUR 290 to the cost per tonne manager) that is responsible for acquiring and time set more stringent limits on the GHG intensity.
under the responsibility of the company during of fossil fuel combusted, representing an almost surrendering emission allowance, all stakeholders The reduction requirement is set relative to the
the reporting period (i.e. the calendar year). By the 50% rise in fuel costs when operating in the EU, through the transport supply chain will have to average well-to-wake fuel GHG intensity of the
30th of September each year, the required number assuming a fuel cost of about EUR 600 per tonne. make sure that the costs are covered through fleet in 2020 of 91.16 gCO2e per megajoule (MJ),
of allowances must be transferred to the account However, in the short term the price is unlikely to contracts between ship managers, owners, char- starting at a 2% reduction in 2025, increasing to
of the administering authority. Companies that be sufficiently high to incentivize a fuel shift by terers and cargo owners. 6% in 2030, and accelerating from 2035 to reach an
fail to surrender allowances are liable to an excess itself. In its impact assessment, the EU considers 80% reduction by 2050. The regulation also allows
emissions penalty of EUR 100 per tonne of CO2 that most of the GHG emission reduction will come The EU has also adopted the FuelEU Maritime for compliance across a group of ships, meaning
(tCO2) and are still liable for the surrendering of the from other sectors.8 The number of allowances put regulation to increase the share of renewable and that one vessel in a pool of ships can over-achieve
required allowances. A company that fails to comply on the market will be reduced by 4.2% per year, low-carbon fuels in the fuel mix of international on the well-to-wake GHG intensity, allowing for the
for two or more consecutive periods may be denied which means that the price can be expected to maritime transport in the EU.9 The regulation sets other ships to continue to use fossil fuels. It is also
entry into the EU for all ships under its responsibility. increase further when the abatement measures requirements on annual average well-to-wake GHG possible to bank and borrow compliance units for
This will be the first time that ships in international with lowest cost have already been implemented. emissions per unit of energy used by the ship. The subsequent periods. From 2030, containerships and
trade are subject to a carbon price, and the EU ETS is
expected to have a significant financial impact.

FIGURE 3.4
3-4
The scopes of the MRV and ETS will be gradually
expanded in the coming years (Figure 3-4). From Timeline
Timeline for
for the
the phase-in
phase-inof
ofship
shiptypes,
types,sizes
sizesand
andadditional
additionalGHGs
GHGsininthe
theEU
EUMRV
MRVand
andETS
EU ETS

2024, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxides (N2O)7 must

2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028–
be reported, and the emissions will be included in
Ship sizes and type
the ETS from 2026. Offshore ships will be required
Cargo/passenger ships (>5 000 GT)
to start reporting from 2027 and those above 5,000
Offshore ships (>5 000 GT)
GT will be included in the ETS from 2027. The MRV
Offshore and general cargo ships (400–5 000 GT) To be decided
will also be expanded to general cargo and offshore
Other cargo/passenger ships (400–5 000 GT) To be decided
shipping between 400 and 5,000 GT from 2025,
which will be evaluated in 2026 for inclusion in the Greenhouse gases
ETS at a later stage. Other cargo and passenger Carbon dioxide (CO2)
ships between 400 and 5,000 GT will be evaluated Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)
for inclusion in MRV and the ETS in 2026 as well.
Phase-in
Overall, the EU ETS will have a significant impact % of emissions included in EU ETS scope
40% 70% 100% 100% 100%
on operations, costs, and contractual agreements.
Key: Methane (CH 4); carbon dioxide (CO 2); European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS);
As of May 2023, the ETS emission allowance price European Union Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (EU MRV); nitrous oxide (N 2 O) Reporting only Included in ETS scope
Key: Methane (CH4); carbon dioxide (CO2); European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS); European Union Monitoring,
Reporting and Verification (EU MRV); nitrous oxide (N2O)
15
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

passenger ships are required to connect to shore 3.1.3 United States

power when at berth for more than two hours in a
TEN-T port.10 From 2035, the requirement applies
to all ports where shore power is available. The The US has not enshrined a climate target in its
electric energy supplied to the ship from shore is national laws, but when re-joining the Paris Agreement
also included for the calculation of the annual GHG in 2021, the country committed to achieve a 50% to
intensity but is considered as having zero well- 52% reduction in net GHG emissions by 2030. The US
to-wake emissions. State Department and the White House have issued a
long-term strategy16 committing to achieving net-zero
The EU ETS includes provisions for the use of CCS, emissions by 2050, focusing among other things on
linked to the EU’s CCS Directive (2009/31/EC). investments in renewable energy production
However, it remains to be seen how this will work and reduced methane emissions, as well as
specifically for onboard carbon capture in shipping. increased natural and technological removal
FuelEU Maritime includes a provision for reviewing of carbon dioxide.
onboard carbon capture and other new technologies
and fuels by the 1st of January 2027. Several US federal agencies have joined in
developing a roadmap for reducing emis- emissions from international shipping reduce carbon emissions and increase energy
In March 2023, the EU presented a proposal for a sions from the transport sector, including to zero no later than 2050. The US has innovation, among other things.22 Tax credits are
Net-Zero Industry Act. The aim is to develop and maritime, which was released in January 2023.17 also initiated several key shipping initi- provided for clean hydrogen production and for
strengthen Europe’s industrial capacity and to The roadmap for maritime outlines actions on atives such as the First Movers Coalition19 in carbon capture and utilization or sequestering. The
ensure that demand for net-zero technologies and research and innovation, international and domestic 2021 and, together with Norway, the Green Shipping IRA includes a new USD 3 billion rebate and grant
solutions to a larger extent can be met through stakeholder engagement and infrastructure Challenge20 in 2022. As part of the Green Shipping programme at the Environmental Protection Agency
European production.11 By 2030, the EU aims to both investment, and improved design and planning. Challenge, the US has committed itself to facilitate to provide funding for zero-emission port equipment
produce 10 million tonnes (Mt) and import 10 Mt per green shipping corridors and to create a US National or technology, along with technical assistance for
annum of clean hydrogen12, and to reach an annual The US is unlikely to impose additional requirements Action Plan for reducing shipping GHG emissions. electrification and emissions-reduction planning
storage capacity of 50 Mt of carbon dioxide13. A on international ships sailing to US ports or in its and port climate-action plan development. The US
wide range of policy incentives already exists to waters in the near term. We may see state require- The US has several policy initiatives that aim to Department of Transportation announced more than
support research and development (including in ments, such as in California, which has imposed support renewable energy production, support USD 703 million to fund 41 projects in 22 states and
shipping) such as the Horizon Europe programme14 mandates for increased use of shore power at berth for manufacturing advanced-technology vehicles, one territory that will improve port facilities through
and the Innovation Fund15 which is funded by since 2014 for cruise vessels, containers, and reefers including ships21, and development of maritime infra- the Maritime Administration’s (MARAD) Port Infra-
proceedings from auctioning part of the ETS for major ports, and will extend the mandates to structure. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) adopted structure Development Program (PIDP).23 The Infra-
emission allowances. tankers and vehicle carriers in the coming years.18 On in 2022 is a major policy instrument supporting the structure Investment & Jobs Act of 2021 authorizes
the federal level, the US works through the IMO to long-term strategy, which provides USD 369 billion USD 2.25 billion to MARAD for the PIDP for fiscal
revise its GHG strategy to aim for phasing out GHG direct investment aiming to ensure energy security, years 2022 through 2036.24

16
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

3.1.4 China

In September 2020, China announced its intentions ments at county level and above to provide financial
to peak carbon emissions by 2030 and achieve support and implement preferential policies to
carbon neutrality by 2060, referred to as the ‘30–60’ enable the upgrading and operation of shore power
goals. This was followed in October 2021 by the supply facilities, as well as the building of vessels
Chinese State Council issuing the ‘Action Plan for powered by clean and new energies.
Carbon Dioxide Peaking Before 2030’.25 Regarding
the shipping sector, China has committed to work China’s national policy on shipping decarboni-
faster to upgrade old ships, develop ships fuelled zation mainly addresses the green and low-carbon
by electric power and LNG, further promote the development of domestic shipping. For interna-
use of shore power by ships while in port, and make tional shipping, the government encourages the
in-depth efforts to advance demonstration and Chinese shipping industry to promote green trans-
utilization of green, smart ships along coastline and formation via active exploration, innovation, and
inland waterways according to local conditions. international collaboration. The regulation on Energy
Consumption Data and Carbon Intensity of Ships29,
Beginning from the top-level design, China’s multi- effective from December 2022, requires all ships of
level government agencies are taking actions to 400 GT and above, regardless of flag, entering or
implement the carbon peak and carbon-neu- leaving Chinese ports to report energy consumption
trality action plan in the shipping sector data of their last voyage to the China Maritime Safety
during the 14th Five-Year Plan period Administration (MSA).
(2021–2025). Among those agencies,
China’s Ministry of Transport published Regarding market-based measures, China’s national
the 14th Five-Year Plans, one for the Devel- ETS started operating in 2021 and is presently
opment of Green Transport26 and another clauses on reducing GHG emissions covering power production only. The planned
for Waterway Transport27 in Jan 2022. These in the shipping sector was submitted expansion of the ETS into seven new sectors does
For interna­tional shipping, the Chinese
plans encourage the application of new and clean in December 2022 to the Standing not include shipping. However, the national market
energy including LNG, methanol, hydrogen, ammonia, Committee of the National People’s Congress government encourages the Chinese has been built on the successful experience of the
and so on, as well as the increased use of shore power. for review. The draft amendment again encourages shipping industry to promote green trans­ local pilot markets. The Shanghai ETS market has
the application of new and clean energies in ships included local shipping companies and ports in its
formation via active exploration, innovation,
Besides the action plans, a draft amendment to the and proposes compulsory requirement for shore carbon emission allowance management unit list30
Marine Environment Protection Law28 – which applies power usage. The draft amendment also proposes and international collaboration. since 2021, indicating that the national ETS could be
to all sea areas under China’s jurisdiction – to include to make it compulsory for coastal-region govern- further expanded as well.

17
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

3.2 Well-to-wake GHG emissions and sustainability of fuels

Achieving significant GHG emission reduction in biomass, and the CO2 emissions from combustion
shipping requires transition to zero or near-zero GHG can be considered to have a neutral climate impact.
emissions technologies, fuels and/or energy sources. However, significant upstream emissions can occur
A key premise in the revised IMO GHG strategy is that due to direct and indirect land-use change, which is
this transition should not lead to increased GHG emis- also a sustainability issue, in connection with culti-
sions in other sectors. For example, switching from a vation and growth of the biomass (Ricardo, 2022a). If
conventional fossil fuel oil to ammonia would lead to using biomass from waste products, these issues can
near-zero GHG emissions from the ship (uncertainty be avoided, though emission for production remains.
remains on N2O emissions); but depending on the
production pathway of the ammonia, there can be For this reason, we expect regulations that will
significant upstream or well-to-tank emissions. For take into account the emissions in a well-to-wake
some high-GHG-intensity fuel production pathways, perspective, starting with the FuelEU Maritime
such as methane reforming without CCS, the total from 2025 and later possibly by the IMO’s GHG fuel
emissions may even be higher than producing and standard and a carbon pricing scheme. Ship-specific
combusting fossil fuels. calculation methods for well-to-wake GHG emissions
of marine fuels are maturing. The main challenges
Biofuels is another possible set of fuels. Although in establishing such methods are related to how to
combusting biofuels on a ship releases CO2 emis- account for direct and indirect land-use emission
sions in the same way as fossil fuels, the carbon from biofuels; the GHG intensity of electricity
in the CO2 was recently removed from the atmos- used for fuel production; CCS; the use of recycled
phere through the growing or cultivation of the captured carbon in the fuel; and how to certify the
well-to-tank emissions.

For FuelEU Maritime, the EU builds on the methods

and certification requirements in the Renewable
A key premise in the revised IMO GHG Energy Directive (RED)31 when detailing the calculation
strategy is that this transition should not methods, standard factors, and how to use specific
certified values. Under FuelEU Maritime, unless a
lead to increased GHG emis­sions in other fuel fulfils certain sustainability and GHG-saving
sectors. criteria according to RED, it is considered as having
GHG emissions equal to the least favourable fossil

18
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

pathway. To be considered sustainable, a biofuel Current emission requirements such as the EEDI/ a list of production standards and their emission
needs to achieve at least a 50% to 65% GHG emission EEXI, CII and the EU ETS which only cover tank- thresholds.
reduction, while renewable fuels of non-biological to-wake emissions also need to consider how to
origin (RFNBO) and recycled carbon fuels (RCF) need provide consistent incentives to fuels that contribute Work is ongoing on adapting the RED certification
to achieve a 70% reduction threshold. to reducing well-to-wake GHG emissions. For processes to also work for FuelEU Maritime. It is
example, the EU ETS recognizes that CO2 emissions also expected that the IMO’s lifecycle analysis (LCA)
Until now, the RED has mainly been concerned with from biofuels, RFNBOs and RCFs fulfilling the same guidelines will apply a similar model where certi-
biofuels; but in 2023, the EU agreed on a revised criteria as described above for FuelEU Maritime fication schemes for marine fuels are recognized
RED as well as delegated acts detailing how to can be considered as zero without having to according to IMO requirements. These regula-
account for GHG emissions reductions for RFNBO surrender allowances. The IMO in July 2023 decided tions and supporting standards provide calculation
and RCFs. Requirements have been set out for on a similar provision for the DCS and CII where methods for well-to-wake emissions which can also
when hydrogen produced from electricity can be sustainable biofuels can be assigned a lower CO2 be used outside regulatory requirements, such as
considered zero-emission, and how to account conversion factor. setting and measuring the progress on net-zero
for captured carbon reused in the fuel (e.g. for emissions targets, ESG reporting, and GHG Protocol
e-methanol). Initially (to 2036 or 2041, depending The regulatory focus on lifecycle GHG emissions Scope 3 reporting requirements set by cargo owners
on source), captured carbon from a wide range of and sustainable production implies that marine and other companies.
sources is considered to be contributing to GHG fuels will be subject to production standards certi-
emission reduction provided the CO2 is subject to fication to verify their origin. Certification schemes In Section 6.2, we project the impact on well-to-wake
effective carbon pricing. In the long term, the only already exist for biofuels, such as those from GHG emissions towards 2050 with and without
carbon that can be recycled in a fuel will be from International Sustainability & Carbon Certification considering production standards and shipboard
sustainable sources. For example, carbon captured (ISCC)34 and the Roundtable on Sustainable Bioma- requirements, considering a Decarbonization by
from the air or from combustion of sustainable fuels, terials (RSB)35. In addition to their own standards, 2050 pathway.
such as biofuels, RFNBOs, or RCFs.32 ISCC and RSB provide certification according to the
International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO)
The IMO, in July 2023, approved guidelines for Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for
calculating lifecycle GHG emissions for marine fuels, International Aviation (CORSIA), for aviation fuels;
including sustainability aspects33. These guide- the EU’s renewable energy directive (RED II); and
lines do not include any provision for application Japan’s mandate for using biofuels. Several initia- The regulatory focus on lifecycle GHG
or requirements but are intended to support the tives are underway in different parts of the world emissions and sustainable production
GHG Fuel Standard under development. The IMO for developing schemes for other types of fuels implies that marine fuels will be subject to
guidelines will be kept under review and developed such as hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuels to
further in the coming years, focusing in particular on certify their origin, such as Australia’s guarantee production standards certi­fication to verify
default emissions factors, sustainability criteria, and of origin scheme36, the China Hydrogen Alliance37 their origin.
fuel certification. and the EU’s CertifHy38. Appendix A.1 provides

19
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

3.3 Net-zero emission shipping services FIGURE 3-5

Conceptual outline of disconnecting the GHG-intensity performance of the physical assets and the service offerings for
bunker supplier and shipowner
Some cargo owners are setting ambitious targets for greenwashing.42 The benefit of carbon insetting is
decarbonization of their operations, both for direct that it is tangible, and a company can also claim it as Fuel supplier Shipping company Cargo owner
emissions from own operations (Scope 1 – see fact part of Scope 3 emission reduction, as opposed to Physical link between fuel and transport service where the
box below) and for their supply chains (Scopes 2 offsetting which can be reported but not as part of carbon footprint of the cargo is determined by the
Fossil
and 3), through net-zero emissions39 targets. For a any of the scopes. emissions of the ship transporting the cargo, and the
emissions of the ship are determined by the fuel it uses
cargo owner with significant transportation needs, 90 gCO2e/MJ 18 gCO2e/t-nm 900 gCO2e
and its energy efficiency.
achieving targets for Scope 3 emissions requires It will not always be possible to physically link the Under FuelEU Maritime, the shipping company can pool
access to low- and zero-emission shipping services. use of a biofuel, or other carbon-neutral fuels, to a compliance using the average GHG intensity per MJ of
Biofuel
Shipping customers are increasingly willing to pay specific service for a specific cargo owner. The fuel fuel. For CII, the rating applies to the individual ship.

a premium for such services.40 Shipping companies may not be available in all places, and transporting 10 gCO2e/MJ 2 gCO2e/t-nm 100 gCO2e
have started responding to this demand. Several it could be costly. The willingness to pay a premium
Fuel supplier Shipping company Cargo owner
of what can generally be termed ‘net-zero emission for a zero-emission product may also not be limited
The shipping company offers a zero-emission service by
services’ are already available in the market from first to a specific trade and may only cover part of a disconnecting the actual emission performance of the ship
Fossil
movers. We expect this growth will accelerate in the ship’s transport work. Instead of transporting and from the claimed footprint of the transport service. Part of

Book-and-claim
the cargo can be delivered with zero emission footprint –
coming years to meet demand from cargo owners.41 distributing the fuel to specific ships, the emission 90 gCO2e/MJ 18 gCO2e/t-nm 0 gCO2e
i.e. even lower than the ship using the biofuel – but the
Currently, net-zero emissions are achieved through reduction is calculated based on the total use of emission footprint for the remaining cargo increases.
the use of certified biofuels, but electrofuels and biofuel in the company’s fleet, and the cargo owner Verification is needed to ensure that the total footprint of
Biofuel
blue fuels could also be options when they become can buy a transport service with a zero-emission the shipping company remains the same.
available. claim. To avoid double-counting and greenwashing 10 gCO2e/MJ 2 gCO2e/t-nm 1000 gCO2e
accusations, rigid control of claims and verification
Fuel supplier Shipping company Cargo owner
Net-zero emission services can also be considered are needed to ensure the total amount of claims for The fuel supplier can also disconnect the emissions claim
a form of carbon insetting. Carbon insetting is a the zero-emission services sold by a ship company from the physical product it sells. The fossil fuel can be
sold as if it were a biofuel, while the actual biofuel then has
specific variant of carbon offsetting and occurs does not exceed the actual reduction from the Fossil

Book-and-claim

Book-and-claim
to be sold as fossil fuel.
where a company’s climate impact is reduced use of biofuels or other fuels. Figure 3-5 shows a 10 gCO2e/MJ 20 gCO2e/t-nm 0 gCO2e Verification and a central register are needed to ensure
through actions within the company’s supply chain conceptual outline disconnecting the GHG intensity that the buyer of the actual biofuel, but sold as fossil fuel,
leading to reduction of Scope 3 emissions. Carbon for services and the physical assets, which can be does not claim any emission reduction.
offsetting is disconnected from the activities of the done both for the fuel supply and for the transport Biofuel This approach is currently not supported by regulations
company and its supply chain but can be used to service. such as FuelEU Maritime, EU ETS and CII.
90 gCO2e/MJ 0 gCO2e/t-nm 1000 gCO2e
achieve a GHG emission-reduction target. Carbon
The GHG intensity for the fuel under the fuel supplier is the well-to-wake GHG emissions. The ships are assumed to use 0.2 MJ fuel per tonne-mile, and the cargo transported is 10 kg over
offsetting has received criticism that it does not Applying such a book-and-claim system could accel- 5 000 nm, which is 50 tonne-miles; Key: Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e); Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII); European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS); tonne-nautical miles (t-nm).

lead to actual emission reduction and is a form of erate uptake of carbon-neutral fuels as those that do

20
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

not have access to the physical product can buy the ships where the average GHG intensity in the pool revision of its guidelines, looking in particular at
claim. However, this approach has little recognition for a calendar year needs to be below the required incorporating market-based accounting methods
in regulatory schemes and other voluntary standards level. for Scope 1 and 3 emissions.45 Under Scope 2, it is
for the time being. possible to apply a market-based method where a
The IMO is currently working on the certification reduction claim – for example, through Renewable
FuelEU Maritime builds on the calculation method requirements for fuels and has not started looking Energy Certificates or other contractual instruments –
and certification process under the EU’s renewable into which chain of custody model to apply. It is also can be used to reduce Scope 2 emissions.
energy directive (RED). The directive requires a mass possible that the GHG Fuel Standard will include
balancing approach to certify a biomass chain of a flexible compliance mechanism, for example by
custody43, and does not allow for a book-and-claim allowing for averaging across a fleet, or a surplus
approach where a certified emission-reduction claim reward mechanism.
can be separated from the physical product. RSB
is currently piloting a book-and-claim approach for The GHG Protocol currently only allows for a physical
sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).44 FuelEU Maritime or average-based approach for determining
allows for pooling of compliance across a fleet of Scope 1 and 3 emissions, but has just started a

How are Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions relevant for a shipping company?

The scopes are defined by the The framework divides the emission of — S
 COPE 3, other indirect emis- ships are part of Scope 1, while emis- of Scope 3 as for fossil fuels. Scope 3
GHG Protocol framework that includes a company into: sions due to the operation of the sions from fuel production, including emissions would also include emis-
company, upstream and down- biofuels, should be reported as sions from manufacturing ships, but
standards and tools to calculate
— SCOPE 1, the direct emissions from stream, and would include emissions Scope 3 emissions. Direct CO2 there are not yet any specific methods
GHG emissions for companies, supply the company’s operations from production of fuels used by the emissions from combustion of for calculating this. For a wide range of
chains, and countries. The framework company. biofuels are not part of any of the businesses like cargo owners, banks,
is often used as basis for ESG (Environ- — S
 COPE 2, the indirect emissions scopes but should be reported in a insurance and so on, ship emissions,
from production of electricity and For a shipping company, the direct separate memo. Emissions related to including the lifecycle emissions from
mental, Social, Governance) reporting, heat generated elsewhere but used emissions from combustion of non- production of biofuels, including land- fuels, are part of their Scope 3 emis-
and has a global reach. by the company biogenic fuels on owned or operated use, should be accounted for as part sions.

21
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

4
OUTLOOK ON
SHIP TECHNOLOGIES
AND FUELS

Highlights
We report and discuss notable trends, developments,
and prospects in the fuel technology transition
underway, including:
– Half the ordered tonnage can use LNG, LPG or
methanol in dual-fuel engines, compared with a third
last year, but urgent action is needed for training in
the use of new fuels.
– Wind-assisted propulsion and air lubrication are
being installed on more vessels.
– Onboard carbon capture and, later, nuclear
propulsion can reduce dependence on sustainable
biomass and renewable electricity.

22
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

Policy developments and stakeholder engagement over the next decades will drive on new ships, due to the difficulties or high costs of on the availability of competence for safe operation
shipowners to identify, evaluate, and use technologies, fuels, and solutions that help retrofitting existing ships. With the increased system of the new technologies coming. Third, it gives an
decarbonize ships, cut energy consumption, and meet other environmental require- complexity and the need for partially automated outlook on six selected technologies with potential
operation of several of these technologies, software impact on the decarbonization of shipping: solid
ments. The expected adoption of energy-saving technologies and logistics, carbon-
and controls are becoming ever more important oxide fuel cells, liquefied hydrogen, wind-assisted
neutral fuels, and exhaust cleaning (see Figure 4-1) may fundamentally change how aspects of ship operation and design. propulsion, air lubrication systems, onboard carbon
ships are designed and operated. Applying operational and technical efficiency capture, and nuclear propulsion.
measures could be sufficient to achieve shorter-term compliance with GHG regulations This chapter first presents the uptake status of alter-
and thereby reduce the need for consumption of more expensive fuels. native fuels in the world fleet, and then an outlook

It is worth stressing that the fuel technology tran- mized weather routing, scheduling, and vessel FIGURE 4-1
sition is already in progress. For ships in oper- utilization. Operational measures do not require Solutions that can contribute to decarbonize shipping, and their GHG reduction potential
ation, 6.52% of tonnage can operate on alternative significant investment in hardware or equipment.
fuels.46 Dozens of large vessels have wind-assisted Implementation of many of these measures will
propulsion systems. Air lubrication systems are require execution of programmes involving changes
installed or ordered for hundreds of ships. So, what in management and training. LOGISTICS AND
HYDRODYNAMICS MACHINERY ENERGY AFTER-TREATMENT
comes next? DIGITALIZATION
Technical efficiency measures generally aim at either
Driven by the tightening regulations and commercial reducing the propulsion and auxiliary engine energy Speed Hull coating Machinery LNG, LPG Carbon
reduction efficiency capture and
drivers described in Chapter 3, the increased cost of demand (e.g. increasing hull and propeller efficiency, Hull-form Biofuels
improvements storage
operating on carbon-neutral fuels will strengthen the reducing hotel load, shore power) or improving Vessel optimization
Electrification
utilization Waste-heat
drive for more efficient operation of the vessel fleet the energy production (e.g. waste-heat recovery, Air lubrication
recovery Methanol
and simultaneously improve the business case for battery hybrid systems, and machinery-system Vessel size
Cleaning
Engine de-rating Ammonia
implementing energy-efficiency measures. Opera- optimization). There is potential for improvement in Alternative
routes Battery Hydrogen
tional efficiency measures relate to the way in which the areas of greatest energy loss; for example, by
hybridization
the ship is maintained and operated, and therefore reducing hull friction and recovering energy from the Wind power
Fuel cells
generally have low investment costs and moderate engine exhaust and cooling water. These measures Nuclear
operating costs. They include measures such as generally have a substantial investment cost and
optimized trim and ballasting, hull and propeller potentially significant emission-reduction effects. >20% 5% –15% 5% –20% 0% –100% 0%–90%
cleaning, improved engine maintenance, and opti- Many technical measures are limited to application

23
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

4.1 Status of fuel technology transition

A review of the world fleet status and current order operation and 14 new tankers on order. This year, the tonnage, 6.5% of ships in operation and 51% on nates, reflecting that battery/hybrid solutions are
book with respect to the implementation of alter- containership segment is dominating with 142 ships order can operate on alternative fuels (including LNG applied mostly on smaller vessels. Of the 1,079 ships
native fuel technology indicates an accelerated on order able to use methanol as fuel. Currently, carriers), compared with last year’s numbers of 5.5% in operation using LNG fuel, 659 are LNG carriers
uptake compared with last year. LNG is still the 72 LPG carriers using LPG as fuel are sailing, while and 33%, respectively. By number of ships, this year's and 420 are ships of other types. The statistics also
most prominent alternative fuel technology choice, 93 LPG carriers and 4 ethane carriers have been figures are 1.8% and 26%, with 1,376 out of 5,258 show a growing uptake of methanol and LPG, as well
and can also be used in dual-fuel solutions with ordered with LPG-burning capacity. ships ordered with alternative fuel capability. as the first hydrogen-fuelled newbuilds.
fuel oil. Furthermore, there has been an increase
in the number of ships capable of using methanol Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 present the status of the Measured by number of ships, the uptake is domi- Although there are ongoing demonstration projects
as fuel in dual-fuel solutions. The gross tonnage of alternative fuel uptake in the world fleet and the nated by battery/hybrid and LNG-fuelled ships. for ammonia-fuelled ships, there are none in the
LNG-fuelled ships on order (excluding LNG carriers) order book (as of July 2023). Measured in gross However, in gross tonnage terms, LNG fuel domi- official order book. Using ammonia as a ship fuel
is more than twice that of such vessels in the existing
fleet. The order book for ships capable of using FIGURE
FIGURE 4.2
4-2
methanol as fuel is 20 times larger than the gross Alternative
Alternative fuel
fuel uptake
uptake in
in the
theworld
worldfleet
fleetin
innumber
numberof
ofships
ships(upper)
(upper)and
andgross
grosstonnage
tonnage(lower),
(lower),as
asof
ofJuly
July2023
2023
tonnage of methanol-fuelled ships currently in oper-
NUMBER OF SHIPS
ation.
Ships in operation 5 Hydrogen Ships on order 5 Hydrogen
27 Methanol 96 LPG
This indicates that the trend of ordering larger
98.2% 91 LPG 73.8% 151 Methanol
ships with alternative fuel propulsion highlighted in conventional 800 Battery/Hybrid conventional 295 Battery/Hybrid
last year’s Maritime Forecast is continuing, but at a fuel fuel
World fleet 1 079 LNG Order book 829 LNG
greater pace. LNG is a popular fuel choice in the car
carrier and containership segments, with 133 and 2 002 Total 1 376 Total
196 ships on order, respectively. Additionally, there
has been a notable increase in the use of LNG for GROSS TONNAGE
tankers (83) and bulk carriers (39). Out of the 1,376 Ships in operation 0.05% Methanol Ships on order 0.80% Battery/Hybrid
ships currently on order with alternative fuels, 306 0.25% LPG 2.24% LPG
are LNG-fuelled LNG carriers, 523 are other types of 93.5% 0.26% Battery/Hybrid 48.7% 8.01% Methanol

LNG-fuelled ships, and 295 are using battery/hybrid conventional conventional

5.96% LNG
fuel fuel 40.3% LNG
propulsion. World fleet Order book

6.52% Total 51.3% Total

Methanol has previously been a choice exclusively
for tankers in the methanol trade, with 23 ships in Sources: IHSMarkit (ihsmarkit.com) and DNV’s Alternative Fuels Insights for the shipping industry – AFI platform (afi.dnv.com)

24
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

requires the continued development of suitable There are currently 45 LNG bunker vessels oper-
energy converter technology, which is still a few ating to serve the fleet of LNG-fuelled ships. A third
years into the future. Furthermore, the lack of (15) of these vessels have a capacity of 10,000 m³ or Challenges currently applicable to most carbon-neutral fuels:
prescriptive rules and regulations for handling more, making them suitable for serving, for example, increased capital investment, limited fuel availability, lack of
ammonia is making it difficult to plan for its imple- the large LNG-fuelled container vessels. The order global bunkering infra­structure, additional training of crew, high
mentation on board. This lack of regulatory devel- book shows that 11 new bunker vessels each with a
opment is also causing issues for the adoption of a capacity greater than 10,000 m³ will be delivered cost of fuel, and additional demand for storage space on board.
hydrogen as a fuel. These implementation barriers within the next few years.
come in addition to the challenges currently appli-
cable to most carbon-neutral fuels: increased capital
investment, limited fuel availability, lack of global
bunkering infrastructure, additional training of crew,
high cost of fuel, and additional demand for storage
space on board. The uptake of vessels capable FIGURE 4-3
FIGURE 4.3
of operating with ammonia as fuel is expected to Development of LNG, LPG and methanol fuel technology uptake by number of ships, excluding gas carriers47
Development of LNG, LPG and methanol fuel technology uptake by number of ships, excluding gas carriers
pick up once the technology becomes available, Ships in operation
supported by the fact that 58 ships in DNV Class with order book
1 500
have been ordered as ‘ammonia ready’, implying
that some preparation for potential conversion to
204
ammonia propulsion has been done at the newbuild 1 200
stage. 191
900
It should be noted that most of the ships which can
Ships in operation
use alternative fuels can also operate on fuel oils in
600 133
dual-fuel solutions. Also, the alternative fuel may be
derived from fossil energy sources, which empha- 949
69
sizes the need for requirements that address green- 300 543
house gas emissions from well-to-wake. 247
356
124 157 186
63 82 99
0
2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

LNG LPG Methanol

25
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

4.2 Outlook for the availability of fuel competence and readiness of safe operational practices

A technology change driven by transition to and methanol; the low-temperature risks associated for deep-sea shipping seen today. It is a result of
carbon-neutral fuels will have to coincide with a with methane, hydrogen, and ammonia; and the more than 20 years of learnings and experiences
corresponding development of the fuel-specific flammability of methanol, methane, and hydrogen of designers, shipowners, seafarers, manufac-
knowledge in terms of seafarer and onshore organ- – bring a new complexity to bunkering operations, turers, yards, flag states, and classification societies
ization competence, and in the maritime industry onboard fuel storage, fuel distribution and mainte- on how to safely integrate and operate onboard
in general. Compared with conventional fuels, nance. LNG fuel systems. The other relevant hydrocarbon
the safety risks arising from the properties of the gaseous fuel, LPG, is currently only used on LPG
alternative fuels – the gaseous nature of hydrogen, Little or no operational experience with new fuels – carriers where the crew is experienced with LPG
ammonia, and methane; the toxicity of ammonia urgent action needed for upskilling handling. Relevant experience has also been gained
The availability of seafarers with fuel-specific compe- for methanol through carriage and use as fuel on
tence will be a critical factor when fuels presenting chemical carriers and as cargo on offshore supply
new operational safety challenges are introduced. vessels, as well as from the first methanol-fuelled
Having a clear understanding of the hazards ships.48
involved in fuel operations and during maintenance
will be essential to be able to control and mitigate For ammonia, the picture is different. The maritime
the risks. industry has experience with carriage of ammonia
in gas carriers and as a refrigerant in refrigeration
While fuel-relevant competencies gained through plants, but not as a fuel. Considering the urgency
decades of operating gas carriers and chemical to decarbonize shipping, major deployment of
carriers will be valuable in upskilling other shipping ammonia as a fuel may happen faster than it did for
segments, this is a very limited resource considering LNG, which means additional focus should be put on
the limited number of ships and seafarers in these the installation and safe operational practices by ship
segments compared to the world fleet. operators and regulators.

The gradual introduction of LNG as a fuel, combined Hydrogen is not transported as a marine cargo apart
FIGURE 4-4
with decades of experience from LNG carriers from one pilot project in Japan49, and the experi-
and their use of cargo boil-off as fuel, have been ences using it as a marine fuel are currently limited
Ship-to-ship bunkering in container
port and at sea/anchorage important for the wider uptake of LNG as a fuel to small-scale R&D projects. The entry into service

26
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

of a ferry powered by proton-exchange membrane recent study: The International Safety Management Safe operational practices – new safety challenges
(PEM) fuel cells fuelled by liquid hydrogen in March (ISM) Code, International Convention on Standards in bunkering operations
2023 marked a significant advance for what remains of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping The introduction of new fuel technologies is expected
a largely untried technology.50 The safety implica- for Seafarers (STCW) and The Maritime Labour to have a significant impact on maritime operations on
tions of storing and distributing hydrogen on ships Convention (MLC). MTF makes recommendations on ships and will require that practices are established to
are unclear. The general understanding of hazards how to close the gaps related to safety management, ensure continued safe and efficient operations during
and risks associated with hydrogen as a marine fuel, crew training and safety culture (MTF, 2023). bunkering, onboard fuel storage, fuel distribution, and
and particularly liquefied hydrogen, is limited (DNV, maintenance. This includes both normal operational
2022c) (DNV, 2022e) (MTF, 2022). The latest safety report from DNV and Lloyd’s List procedures and emergency procedures in case of
Intelligence outlines what must be done to address accidental fuel release.
No matter which fuels and technologies are ulti- safety concerns in the maritime sector – particularly
mately being used, additional training for seafarers The ability to build up sufficient training capacity is given the challenges that come with digitalization Bunkering without interrupting other ship and cargo
is essential to ensure their safety and that of the currently subject to several constraints including: and decarbonization (LLI, DNV, 2023). Digitalization operations is the norm for conventional oil-fuelled
environment and local communities. This upskilling supports the switch to alternative fuels. However, ships with short port stays. It is also being estab-
needs to be mirrored in the onshore organization. — the lack of clarity surrounding alternative fuel while digital tools can provide valuable insights and lished as the default bunkering mode for LNG-fuelled
options and decarbonization trajectories, along automate certain processes, human judgement, ships in these segments.52 It is reasonable to assume
A recent DNV study for the Maritime Just Tran- with slow regulatory development, making expertise, and decision-making are still essential. that there will also be a commercial and operational
sition Task Force points towards an immediate investment in seafarer training challenging Crew and other stakeholders need to be vigilant, drive towards continuing this practice for fuels like
need to train seafarers (DNV, 2022d). The increase proactive, and well-trained to identify and address methanol, ammonia, and hydrogen.
in newbuild orders for alternative fuels will increase — the need to invest in training facilities and potential safety risks. Most of the global fleet of
the demand for seafarers with the required compe- up-to-date equipment (e.g. simulators providing ships will continue to be operated by seafarers The practice of refuelling while simultaneously
tence, challenging their availability in the near opportunities for hands-on learning experiences) even if some vessels become fully autonomous performing other operations (simultaneous oper-
term. The number of seafarers expected to work over the next 10 or 20 years. Advances made in ations, SIMOPs) is typically reviewed on a case-
on ships fuelled by LNG/LPG could increase by — the lack of qualified trainers vessel operations technology over the past decade by-case basis by ship operator towards local
nearly 200,000 within the next five years. As many have already seen routine activity shifted from ship stakeholders. The purpose is to identify potential
as 800,000 seafarers may require additional training — the shortage of experienced seafarers. to shore. For this ship-shore partnership to work hazardous interactions between bunkering and
by the mid-2030s to enable the fuel transition in as it should, safety and security training of both other activities, regarding the receiving ship and the
shipping. However, the timing and type of training The Maritime Technologies Forum (MTF)51 iden- seafarers and shoreside teams must be reassessed surrounding area, and to determine if any additional
provided will depend on the ambition of decarboni- tifies potential gaps for future safe use of alternative to ensure that safety will be in focus in all parts of safety measures need to be implemented before the
zation trajectories and the future fuel mix. fuels within three existing Conventions/Codes in a the organization. activity can proceed.

27
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

nearly all reported safety and regulatory issues as have a lower risk than refuelling while simultane-
In interviews with Nordic ports, nearly all key barriers against supplying hydrogen, ammonia, ously performing other operations in port . Alter-
and methanol (Menon, 2022). The safety aspects natively, shore-to-ship ammonia bunkering could
reported safety and regulatory issues as are perceived as more critical for ammonia than for be performed in designated areas where SIMOPS
key barriers against supplying hydrogen, hydrogen and methanol, illustrating the need for are not common practice, similar to how cargo is
ammonia, and methanol. training for ports as well. Their concerns include, transferred between gas carriers and onshore gas
among others, how port operations may pose a terminals today (Figure 4-5). For ship types with
threat or affect people living nearby, how to handle short port stays, the need for performing bunkering
potential leakages, the additional space demand operations at sea/anchorage or in designated areas
Performing SIMOPs safely requires co-ordination related to required safety zones, the lack of a regu- without SIMOPs would have significant implications
between the competent authority, terminal operator, latory framework, and uncertainty related to lengthy for operations, causing delays and additional costs.
fuel supplier, bunkering infrastructure owner, and regulatory processes with authorities.
receiving ship. The Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel
(SGMF) is one organization providing guidance on Safety studies examining the potential ramifications
how to determine which other ship and port opera- of large ammonia leaks indicate how key operational
tions may be conducted safely while an LNG-fuelled parameters, such as ammonia storage conditions,
ship is being bunkered (SGMF, 2018). Similar transfer flow rate, and release duration, can signif-
guidance is relevant and needed for bunkering of icantly affect the dispersion of ammonia, and the
methanol, ammonia, and hydrogen to evaluate the degree of reduction in affected area that can poten-
feasibility of performing other operations, such as tially be achieved by changing parameters (S. Dhar-
loading and unloading cargo or having passengers mavaram, 2023) (DNV, 2021b) (Clara Kay Leng Ng,
on board, while bunkering these fuels. Depending 2023). An important additional issue with ammonia,
on factors like proximity to populated areas, type of however, is that some leaks may be small enough not
fuel to be bunkered, and type of bunkering facility, to be harmful, yet still be perceived as very dangerous
the risk may be considered too high to accept (due to the potent ammonia smell) in surrounding
bunkering in certain locations or in parallel with areas, leading to potential major responses in public.
other operations (Figure 4-4).
Irrespective of risk studies, it is clear that from a FIGURE 4-5
In interviews with Nordic ports regarding their views bunkering safety point of view, performing ship- Gas carrier loading/unloading
on barriers against supplying zero-carbon fuels, to-ship ammonia bunkering at sea/anchorage would at gas terminal

28
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

4.3.1 Solid oxide fuel cell

New types of efficient onboard energy converters

could reduce the GHG emissions compared to
4.3 Ship technologies and fuels for decarbonization combustion engines. One such converter technology
is the solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC), which has raised
The drivers for the decarbonization of shipping are becoming clear and a tran- interest in the market due to the ability to convert
sition in fuel technology is already underway. However, the search for solutions fuels like ammonia, LNG, methanol, and hydrogen to
continues as the industry needs to understand and have a clear view of all the electricity with a potentially higher energy efficiency
options and how suitable they are for individual ships and shipowners. In the compared to internal combustion engines.53
Solid oxide fuel cell can convert fuels like
following, we present an outlook on six selected technologies. They include
three aimed at reducing fuel consumption, liquefied hydrogen as fuel, and two SOFC is characterized by its use of a solid oxide ammonia, LNG, methanol, and hydrogen
– onboard carbon capture and nuclear propulsion – that may reduce reliance material as the electrolyte used to conduct negative to electricity with a potentially higher
on renewable electricity, sustainable biomass, or blue ammonia/hydrogen for oxygen ions from the cathode to the anode. The
decarbonization. Chapter 7 explores whether the latter two technologies can fuel cell is made up of ceramic layers, a few milli-
energy efficiency compared to internal
compete in economic terms compared with fuel oil, LNG (including carbon- metres in thickness, stacked together and connected combustion engines.
neutral versions), and carbon-neutral ammonia and methanol. in series to form a SOFC stack. The ceramics used
do not become active until they reach very high
temperatures, which is why SOFC power plants are used in combination with onboard carbon capture
typically run at temperatures between 500°C and and storage, as high concentrations of CO2 allow
1000°C. The high operating temperature is making for less energy to be used for the capture process.
it possible for some SOFCs to internally reform fuels The potential of using SOFCs with LNG as fuel has
like ammonia and light hydrocarbons into hydrogen been explored in, for example, (Georgopoulou, et al.,
at the anode without the need for external fuel 2021), where DNV and Euronav found that if an SOFC
reformers. If the heat given off by the exothermic system with waste-heat recovery through steam
electrochemical oxidation of the reformed hydrogen turbines could achieve 60% electrical efficiency, then
within the fuel cell can be recovered from the the fuel consumption of an LNG-fuelled very large
exhaust and utilized on board, a higher energy yield crude carrier (VLCC) could be reduced by 33% using
and corresponding reduction in GHG emissions this fuel-cell system.
could be achieved compared to current dual-fuel
Simplified visualization engines. Additionally, SOFCs fuelled by natural Apart from the potential efficiency increase, fuel cells
of a CO2 molecule
gas do not have issues with methane slip, and the have other potential benefits such as reduced noise,
concentrated CO2 in the exhaust can be beneficial if reduced maintenance needs, modular and flexible

29
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

Additionally, several cruise ship owners are 4.3.2 Liquefied hydrogen

Apart from the potential efficiency increase, looking at the possibility of using SOFC with
natural gas as fuel. MSC Cruises took delivery of
fuel cells have other potential benefits such MSC World Europa in October 2022. The ship is The direct use of liquefied hydrogen has seen its first
as reduced noise, reduced maintenance
needs, modular and flexible design, and
reportedly the world’s largest LNG-fuelled cruise
ship in operation and is fitted with a 150 kW
use as a marine fuel for a ferry in Norway59, where
MF Hydra has installed 400 kW of PEM fuel cells H2
SOFC demonstrator installation fuelled by natural and an 80 m³ C-type tank for liquefied hydrogen60.
improved part-load operation efficiency. gas.56 MSC is also investigating other fuels on its The ferry is operated by Norled, on contract for the
vessels Explora V and Explora VI. In addition to Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA).
LNG-fuelled propulsion machinery, these ships are This is yet another major contribution by the NPRA
design, and improved part-load operation efficiency. planned to feature a containment system for liquid to the development and implementation of new
However, fuel cells come with significant disadvan- hydrogen which will power a 6 MW fuel-cell instal- technology, following the introduction of the first A successful development of a large
tages related to cost and durability. These challenges lation intended to deliver emission-free power for LNG-powered ferry MF Glutra in 2000, and the first
liquefied hydrogen carrier can entail new
will need tackling before fuel cells can make a mean- hotel operations and allowing for zero-emission electric ferry, MF Ampere, in 2014.
ingful contribution to reducing emissions. operations in port, with the engines turned off.57 tank designs for the cryogenic hydrogen.
Liquefied hydrogen is also being investigated as a fuel
The ShipFC54 project intends to demonstrate that Currently, SOFCs involve about 10 times the CAPEX for deep-sea shipping. In addition, plans are made
ammonia-fuelled SOFCs can provide long-range of internal combustion engines per kW installed, for transporting liquefied hydrogen on ocean-going liquefied hydrogen as fuel in deep-sea shipping is the
zero-emission voyages on larger ships. The Eides- and have a much shorter lifetime.58 Laboratory tests vessels61 aiming to fulfil plans for importing hydrogen low volumetric energy density compared with other
vik-owned offshore vessel Viking Energy will in late indicate that SOFCs can achieve significantly higher to, for example, the EU62. The transported hydrogen fuels, when also considering the fuel containment
2023 be retrofitted with a 2 megawatt (MW) ammonia efficiencies than conventional engines, but this has could be made from both renewable electricity and systems. The energy density for liquefied hydrogen is
fuel cell in a project hoping to demonstrate the ability not yet been demonstrated on a ship. Fuel cells must fossil energy with CCS. Four ports in Europe and one higher than for compressed hydrogen, which is being
to operate for up to 3,000 hours annually on ammonia first be demonstrated to have a significantly higher port in Japan are developing hydrogen import plans. considered in several projects for short-sea shipping.
only. The project also aims to ensure that a large fuel efficiency than internal combustion engines in real The Suiso Frontier, a 1,250 m³ liquefied hydrogen This makes it imperative to include measures to
cell can safely and effectively be the sole provider of operating conditions, in a real ship energy system, carrier prototype, completed its first international reduce fuel consumption, not only to reduce the direct
electric power to shipboard systems. over the ship’s entire operational profile. Once the cargo voyage from Victoria, Australia to Japan in fuel costs, but also to reduce the space required for
promise of significantly reduced fuel consumption is January 202263. For an example of a new design for a onboard storage. Applying technical and operational
A consortium led by Shell55 aims to design, manu- decisively answered, SOFCs can be mass produced liquefied hydrogen carrier, see Figure 4-6. energy-efficiency measures, logistics optimization, and
facture, and install a 600 kilowatt (kW) SOFC and work on improving cell lifetimes and reducing energy assistance (e.g. wind) will extend the oper-
auxiliary power unit on an LNG carrier for a year of costs can begin in earnest. The pilot projects Challenges to using liquefied hydrogen as ship fuel ational range of the ship and reduce loss of cargo
testing in 2025. The trial seeks to test the technol- underway have potential to demonstrate SOFCs’ include high fuel costs, currently expensive fuel space.
ogy’s decarbonization potential, prove its scalability real operational efficiency over the next three to five cells and tanks, and lack of regulations for onboard
as a propulsion solution for shipping, and enable years. use, due to safety concerns over flammability and Another challenge for the use of liquefied hydrogen
wider industry acceptance of fuel cells. explosion risk. A key economic barrier to using is the successful development of fuel cells, discussed

30
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

in the chapter above, though there is also ongoing (IRENA, 2022). These ongoing technological devel- 4.3.3 Wind-assisted propulsion systems
development and use of hydrogen in internal opments could decrease the cost of supplied
combustion engines64. The technological improve- liquefied hydrogen as an energy carrier and bunker
ments of LNG-fuelled SOFCs can in many respects fuel relative to other fuels.65 Wind-assisted propulsion system (WAPS) technol-
be directly transferrable to using liquefied hydrogen ogies have gained significant attention as a means
as fuel. If the higher-end efficiencies seen in research To illustrate the effect of reduced hydrogen fuel and of reducing ship fuel consumption and emissions.
literature for fuel cells can be achieved, the use of equipment cost from potential new technological In generating aerodynamic forces, they use wind
fuel cells can significantly reduce the fuel usage and innovations on the future fuel mix, we have performed power to supplement vessel propulsion. WAPS could
necessary storage volumes for liquid hydrogen – for a sensitivity study on fuel price and CAPEX input in the significantly improve the efficiency of shipping oper-
example, see (Georgopoulou, et al., 2021). Pathway Model that we use to simulate the future fuel ations and contribute meaningfully to decarbonizing
mix of the world fleet. For this latest Maritime Forecast the industry, as wind is an inexhaustible, free, and Wind-assisted propulsion has already
Furthermore, a successful development of a large to 2050 we have not run a new set of scenarios, but carbon-neutral energy source.
liquefied hydrogen carrier can entail new tank have rerun two of the 24 scenarios published in the delivered yearly fuel savings of between 5%
designs for the cryogenic hydrogen. Most storage 2022 edition, with the only changes being reduced Unlike alternative fuels, wind-assisted propulsion – and 9% for certain ships, and is claimed to
of liquefied hydrogen today is done in smaller pres- CAPEX and fuel price for liquefied hydrogen. These because it uses wind energy to directly provide addi- have the potential to reach 25%.
surized tanks, and it is to be expected that the cost of two scenarios (numbers 17 and 21 on page 63 in tional thrust to a ship – is categorized as a technology
storage per unit of transported energy will be signif- (DNV, 2022a)) represented a Decarbonization by 2050 that reduces the propulsion power in the energy
icantly reduced in a successful large tank design. trajectory, and very low electrofuel prices (scenario efficiency indices of EEXI/EEDI. In other words, wind
Decreasing the cost of a liquefied hydrogen carrier 17) and very low blue fuel prices (scenario 21). With a in this terminology is not an alternative fuel that is
vessel will not only help towards make transporting 25% reduction in liquefied hydrogen fuel price and bought and bunkered. Wind-assisted propulsion has of fossil fuels, may be just what is needed to success-
liquefied hydrogen economically feasible, it will also a 25% reduction in additional CAPEX for a liquefied already delivered yearly fuel savings of between 5% fully implement a near zero-emission concept.
reduce the final cost of delivered liquefied hydrogen hydrogen ship, we see uptakes of 17% (very low elec- and 9% for certain ships, according to vessel owners
to the end consumer, as will a potential decrease trofuel prices) and 39% (very low blue fuel prices) for and operators, and is claimed to have the potential The renewed interest in wind power will probably
in the energy needed for liquefaction of hydrogen liquefied hydrogen fuel in 2050. We have assumed to reach 25%. Potentially, the gains can be higher not lead to a renaissance of the sailing tall ships
that all vessels have a suitable arrangement for oper- if newbuilds are specifically designed to carry sail which served worldwide trade in previous centuries,
ation on liquefied hydrogen, which may not be the systems. By combining wind-assisted propulsion but wind power can be a supplement to bunkered
case for all ships due to space restrictions66. technology with weather routing algorithms and alternative fuels. Current wind-assisted propulsion
logistics optimization (e.g. allowing for lower speed), technology relies on a combination of advanced
the advantages of sailing can be enhanced by gener- aerodynamics, automation, computer modelling
FIGURE 4-6 ating optimal routes for individual vessels. Transition and modern materials to unlock a new generation of
Concept design of liquefied hydrogen carrier, to carbon-neutral fuels will typically imply increased innovative sail systems for ocean-going ships. Most
courtesy of Shell Plc
fuel costs and reduced energy storage capacity/ modern systems utilize state-of-the-art intelligent
range. In this context, wind combined with energy control and automation systems to operate safely,
optimization measures and, potentially, a small share without the requirement for additional crew.

31
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

Several different sailing technology concepts have at publicly announced projects, these numbers are secured Horizon Europe funding totalling EUR 9mn substantial propulsion effect and improved opera-
been or are being developed, including rigid or soft expected to double over the next year.70 to support the building of a RoRo sailing vessel71 over tional ability from the installation. It has estimated
wing sails, rotor sails, ventilated foils, and kites, see the next five years. that 21% of the energy consumed by the vessel in
Figure 4-7. An example of a large commercial vessel project 2021 was renewable energy.72
utilizing wind power is the Orcelle Wind, for which Sea-Cargo has installed two tiltable rotor sails on
Alongside the potential benefits of wind-assisted Wallenius Wilhelmsen and project partners have its vessel SC Connector and reports gaining a Sea-Cargo’s SC Connector is fitted with two Norsepower
tiltable rotor sails (Image Sea-Cargo)
propulsion technologies there are challenges to
widespread adoption. One key challenge is to ensure
the reliability of technologies that can operate effec-
tively in a variety of conditions.67

Currently, 28 large commercial vessels have installed

wind propulsion systems68 representing more than
one million tonnes of deadweight69. Rotor sails
account for half of the current installations. Looking

FIGURE 4-7
FIGURE 4.7
Wind-assisted propulsion system technologies supported
Wind-assisted
by propulsion
DNV Standards 67 system technologies supported by
DNV Standards

Rigid Soft
Rotor wing wing
sails sails sails

Soft sail Ventilated

system foil system

32
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

4.3.4 Air lubrication systems

Air lubrication systems (ALS) can reduce energy Some systems apply multiple rows of air release of the full-scale ship typically cannot be met. Extrap-
consumption by lowering the resistance between the units in the ship’s longitudinal direction, while all olating test results from limited models to actual ship
hull and seawater through injecting air along the flat have several air release units placed transversely. conditions is challenging, but more feasible than
bottom area of a ship. A vessel’s resistance to motion Much effort is put into the design of the air outlets conducting experiments under full-scale conditions
through the water consists of multiple components, to improve the efficiency of the air injection. The aim with a prototype.
of which the frictional resistance is the dominant is to get the maximum reduction of frictional viscous
one. For low-speed displacement vessels, frictional resistance with a minimum of required air pressure Model tests with scaled models have been used, but
resistance can reach 85% of total resistance. The and volume. the results are also difficult to extrapolate to full-scale.
skin friction resistance is proportional to the wetted Traditional towing tank tests for calm water resistance
surface of the hull and the cruising speed, and Air lubrication systems inject air along the Laboratory tests have been performed with full-scale rely on a rather complex extrapolation procedure,
even small decreases in skin friction can have large air release units to optimize the air outlets. In these which reflects the physical processes involved. With
impacts on the fuel consumption when the vessel is flat bottom area of a ship to reduce the tests the water inflow speed is similar to the vessel’s air lubrication applied, the validity of these extrapo-
travelling at speed. frictional drag. speed and the viscous turbulent boundary layer lation procedures is compromised, making perfor-
behaves like on the vessel, but the ambient pressure mance improvement predictions uncertain.
Air lubrication systems inject air along the flat
bottom area of a ship to reduce the frictional drag.
Due to the turbulence in the boundary layer, an
air and seawater mixture is established. When a
sustained air layer in this mixture can be generated
over a large portion of the ship bottom, drag
reduction is greater than if the air layer breaks up
into patches or if the patches further break up into
large bubbles.

The reduction in frictional drag depends on the

homogeneity of the air and seawater mixture and
the rate of air flow across the width of the bottom
over the length of the ship, making the distribution of
the air release units discharging the air an important
factor.

33
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

4.3.5 Onboard carbon capture and storage

Full-scale measurements can be used to quantify the Air lubrication is presently seeing a high rate The concept of onboard carbon capture and storage
effect of air lubrication technology. The ability to turn of uptake, particularly in the container and gas (CCS) is based on technology that captures the
the systems on and off provides an excellent oppor- carrier segments, but is still in early days of imple- carbon in the fuel before CO2 is emitted to the
tunity for verification. Collecting a set of system-on mentation. By June 2023, more than 347 vessels atmosphere through the exhaust. This requires
and system-off measurements during stationary either equipped or retrofitted with an air lubri- onboard CO2 storage capacity as well as a value
conditions has been shown to provide accurate esti- cation system have been reported as contracted or chain that can receive and store the CO2 perma-
mates of the increased vessel speed and reduced delivered.73 In total, the three large Korean yards nently away from the atmosphere. Onboard carbon
engine power. Hanwha Group, HD Hyundai, and Samsung Heavy capture allows for continued use of carbon-rich
Industries have 137 vessels equipped with air lubri- fossil energy directly on individual ships (but with
The net power savings of an air lubrication system cation systems in their reference lists, comprising significantly reduced CO2 emissions), as opposed Onboard carbon capture enables
will be the savings from the reduction of the hull fric- 105 LNG carriers, 26 container vessels, and 6 to the industrial transformation of fossil energy to carbon-neutral operation without being
tional resistance, adjusted for the additional power container/RoRo vessels. The UK company Silver- carbon-free blue fuels (ammonia or hydrogen) with
needed to run the air compressors and auxiliaries of stream Technologies has 110 vessels equipped centralized carbon capture on land. Hence, onboard
dependent on blue fuels or fuels made
the system. Typical values for net power savings, as with ALS in its references, comprising 19 LNG carbon capture enables carbon-neutral operation from sustainable biomass or renewable
provided by system manufacturers, are in the range carriers, 53 containerships, 20 cruise ships, 6 without being dependent on blue fuels or fuels elec­tricity.
of 4% to 7% at normal operating weather conditions bulkers/tankers, and 12 RoRo vessels. More vessels made from sustainable biomass or renewable elec-
(up to Beaufort scale 5) without large roll motions or equipped with the Finnish company Foreship‘s tricity.
large trim. air lubrication system and with the Mitsubishi Air
Lubrication System (MALS) are reported in service Onboard carbon capture and storage systems storage sites. Carbon pricing is expected to be the
or on order. will therefore be dependent on a developed infra- primary driver for this onshore development. An
structure for shore-based CCS, as onboard capture example could be the EU ETS already in place for
Future research will likely improve the perfor- will be the starting point of a long logistics chain. The land-based industry. It is reasonable to assume that
mance of air lubrication systems significantly, ship will require: carbon capture facilities to remove the shore-based CO2 capture industry will drive the
and the ability to maintain a stable air layer for CO2 from the exhaust; process plant to transform development of much of this logistic chain, as the
a larger distance downstream is a key research captured CO2 to a state suitable for storage; and volumes that will be captured ashore are estimated
topic. New types of hull coating may be part of storage and offloading facilities enabling discharge to be much larger than for shipping. Shipping emits
the solution. Another important element is opti- to shore or transport ship. Once captured and around 1,000 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Fore-
mization of the ALS control system and usage, ready for discharge, successful permanent CO2 casted global CCS capacity in net-zero policies’ 2050
considering the effect of changing vessel draft, storage requires the development of a reception scenarios ranges from 4,000 to 8,400 MtCO2 stored
trim, and speed, or waves and wave-induced infrastructure connected to a transport network annually, part of which could be made available for
AIDAperla is fitted with air lubrication system vessel motions. of pipelines or ships to get the CO2 to permanent CO2 captured from shipping (Ricardo; DNV, 2023).

34
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

There are several potential methods for reducing technically. The design CO2 capture rate should
the CO2 content in industrial flue gases, while for be aligned with the ship’s GHG ambitions over its
shipping, the post-combustion method, capturing lifespan, the CO2 storage capabilities, and the CO2
CO2 from the exhaust after the fuel has been burned, offloading frequency. It should also be optimized to
seems to be the method of choice. Post-combustion combine with carbon-neutral fuel use, if the carbon
capture technologies for onboard use can be based reduction requirements exceed the capabilities of
on different principles like chemical absorption, the capture system. Capturing CO2 while running on
membrane separation, or cryogenic capture technol- carbon-neutral fuels will remove CO2 from the global
ogies. The chemical absorption process using amine carbon cycle.
solvents currently seems to be the most popular
option. This technology is considered mature for The Norwegian shipowner Solvang ASA is one of
shore-based applications, and several companies are Solvang and Wärtsilä intend to use the early movers within onboard carbon capture.
working to prove its usability for ships. Clipper EOS for full-scale testing of Solvang and Wärtsilä have signed a Letter of Intent74
onboard carbon capture and storage
(Photo rendering by courtesy of to do a full-scale testing of a Wärtsilä carbon capture
Wärtsilä and Solvang Shipping) plant onboard Clipper EOS, which is on time charter
From a ship perspective, the costs of onboard to Marubeni Corp, Tokyo. The goal is to demon-
carbon capture will to a large degree depend on: strate that CO2 can be captured from heavy fuel oil
carbon capture technology and storage facilities for will be easier to manage, but for both newbuilds (HFO) combustion and stored aboard in deck tanks,
— t he installation cost of carbon capture and CO2 demand space and will add considerable weight. and retrofits there will be more exhaust emissions and to gain experience on operational aspects of
storage facilities on the ship to clean due to the energy demand of the onboard the process, energy consumption, and maintenance
Extra energy is needed – referred to as ‘the fuel carbon capture system. needs.
— t he additional operating costs and additional penalty’ – for exhaust cleaning and processing, which
fuel consumption required to run the carbon may require installing additional auxiliary power. The The effectiveness of onboard carbon capture and EverLoNG75 is a three-year EU research initiative
capture and storage process on board fuel penalty, typically estimated to be between 10% storage systems in purifying exhaust depends on involving the maritime, R&D, and engineering sectors
and 40%, will depend on the type and size of the various factors, such as the type of capture system, and co-funded by the ERA-NET ACT3 programme.
— t he cost of delivering captured CO2 to system, the fuel consumption deciding the exhaust rate of absorption, capture system size, fuel type, The project aims to encourage the uptake of
reception facilities. flow into the capture system, and the CO2 capture fuel consumption rate, and CO2 concentration in the onboard carbon capture and storage by demon-
rate. Higher capture rates will require more input exhaust gas. For example, lighter fuels have a higher strating its use on LNG-fuelled ships and moving it
energy and/or additional equipment, and at some CO2 concentration and less sulphur oxides (SOX) and closer to market readiness. The work tasks include
A shipowner considering onboard carbon capture point, such increases may not be defensible. The particulate matter (PM). demonstrating onboard carbon capture and storage
and storage as a decarbonization strategy will be ability to use waste heat from the ship systems in the effectiveness by installing test installations on two
faced with several technical challenges regarding capture process will also be a determining factor for A 100% CO2 capture rate does not seem to be a real- LNG-fuelled vessels, evaluating the cost of onshore
system integration and optimization. For retrofitting the fuel penalty. For a newbuild, integration of the istic goal for an onboard carbon capture plant, while logistics, and developing a roadmap proposal for a
on existing ships, it should be noted that both the CCS plant and the required auxiliary power increase manufacturers indicate that 90% could be achieved European CO2 offloading network.

35
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

4.3.6 Nuclear propulsion

Nuclear propulsion is a zero-emission, zero-carbon, Application Group, 2022). The majority of marine Small modular reactors have some qualities that
and carbon-neutral alternative for shipping, and nuclear reactors have been used in naval surface fit well with shipping, approximately matching the
industry actors are considering nuclear-powered ships and submarines, and Russia has built 12 power output of larger ships. Several of the SMRs
merchant shipping. Nuclear propulsion provides the icebreakers with nuclear propulsion, of which 7 are are claimed to be of inherently safe design by not
ship’s main energy needs from an onboard nuclear still in operation77. Three experimental merchant requiring active control to avoid nuclear accidents.
reactor in which controlled fission of nuclear fuel ships have been outfitted with nuclear propulsion This would be a significant benefit in shipping by
produces heat that is extracted using a coolant. (Schøyen & Steger-Jensen, 2017): Savannah in the not requiring a large and specialist crew to operate
The heat is used to generate power – for example, US (1962–1972), Otto Hahn in Germany (1968–1979), the nuclear reactor, while serial production would
by generating steam to drive turbines, either to Mutsu in Japan (1990–1992), as well as the Russian reduce the regulatory burden and thereby the costs.
generate electricity for electric propulsion or to drive merchant ship Sevmorput, which is still in operation. Small modular reactors have some qualities
a shaft for mechanical propulsion. In addition to the that fit well with shipping, approximately At least 70 SMR designs are being proposed (IAEA,
advantage of inherently carbon-neutral operation, a For economies of scale, the size of nuclear reactors 2020), with three in operation and three under
nuclear-powered ship is less exposed to risks related on land have over time increased to an installed
matching the power output of larger ships. construction (IEA, 2022c). These are based on both
to price fluctuations and availability of carbon-neutral capacity of around 1 gigawatt (GW) or more, existing and new technologies and are defined
fuels, as well as possible changes in emission regu- reducing the operation and maintenance costs per within different reactor categories: land-based
lations and emission costs. Furthermore, such ships output. The economy of scale would be reduced water-cooled, marine-based water-cooled, high-tem-
have long bunkering intervals, possibly aligning with for smaller nuclear power reactors, but it may be perature gas-cooled, liquid metal, and molten salt.
the dry-docking schedule or even with the lifetime of offset by the economy of multiples through stand- When the reactor output is less than 20 MW, they
the ship. ardization and subsequent mass production. In are classified as microreactors. Six of the designs
a centralized plant, small nuclear reactors can listed in (IAEA, 2020) are for marine application, all of
Nuclear propulsion still has implementation barriers be manufactured in modules for installation at which are based on water-cooled reactors. However,
to overcome, the most significant being non-prolifer- other sites, allowing for standardization, reduced other companies are working towards the maritime
ation issues, preventing nuclear accidents, need for regulatory burdens, improved quality control, sector. For example, Ulstein78 has a concept ship
international regulatory development76, and public and shortened construction times. In this way, design, while Seaborg79 and Core Power80 are both
perception of the technology. the process avoids making each power plant’s developing molten salt reactors.
construction a first-of-its-kind. Typically, the designs
Approximately 700 nuclear reactors have been aim to improve safety performance to achieve A molten salt reactor (MSR) is a class of nuclear
used on ships and submarines since the first nucle- public acceptance and to reduce operating costs. fission reactor in which a molten salt either performs
ar-powered ship, the American submarine Nautilus, These types of reactors are known as Small Modular a primary cooling function for the reactor and/or
was introduced in 1955. As of today, 160 ships with Reactor (SMR) and have up to 300 MW of electric Otto Hahn was one of three experimental merchant ships that
the fuel is a molten salt mixture with the nuclear fuel
200 reactors are in operation (Maritime Nuclear output. were equipped with nuclear propulsion (uranium or thorium) dissolved in the salt. ORNL in

36
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

the US operated an MSR reactor successfully from undergo natural decaying, releasing only decay heat. to the manufacturer for refuelling or replacement for the lifespan of a ship84. Chapter 8 investigates
1965 to 1969, and a significant effort was put into The use of molten salt instead of zirconium-based (after about three years). The eVinci is based on a which annual leasing costs for nuclear propulsion –
solving corrosion challenges.81 The salt typically fuel rods also prevents the formation of hydrogen micro-pipe cooling with sodium without moving with corresponding interest rates and CAPEX – could
has a melting point around 400ºC and boiling gas as is the case in water-cooled reactors, thus elim- parts, a solid moderator (metal hydride), and a compete with other proposed solutions for decar-
point at 1,400ºC, enabling the reactor to operate inating the risk of hydrogen explosions. nuclear core that is sub-critical (i.e. with decreasing bonizing the case-study ship, a 15,000 TEU container
at low pressure at around 700ºC compared to rate of fission) without utilizing movable neutron vessel.
water-cooled reactors which typically operate A sub-category of SMR is microreactors with capac- reflectors around the core. The reactor container is
at temperatures of about 300ºC and pressure ities up to 20 MW. One such microreactor is the also planned to come with built-in shielding.
of about 150 bar. When molten salt is used as 5 MW reactor eVinci by Westinghouse83, which is
reactor fuel, the nuclear reactivity decreases with intended to be fitted in shipping containers for Nuclear reactors are CAPEX-intensive, giving rise to
higher temperature, making the process self-reg- transporting to the power production site and back the concept of shipowners leasing a nuclear reactor
ulating and preventing thermal run-aways. As an
additional safety feature, separate, cooled drain
tanks are placed underneath the reactor where
the radioactive fuel can be drained to in accident
scenarios as a passive safety measure or for regular
maintenance. Draining the fuel-salts from the core
into this tank renders the reactor subcritical, due
to the shape of the draining tank.82 In case of loss
of electric power a freeze plug would melt, auto-
matically draining the fuel-salts into the draining
tank. Once in the draining tank the fuel-salts would

US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier

USS Gerald R. Ford sailing into the
Oslofjord, Norway, May 2023
Copyright Hendrik W. Brinks

37
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

5
OUTLOOK ON
ALTERNATIVE FUEL
PRODUCTION AND
DEMAND

Highlights
We assess the future for carbon-neutral fuels for which
shipping will compete with other sectors, concluding that:
– The estimated demand from shipping to achieve emission-
reduction goals in 2030 is 30% to 40% of the total world
supply of carbon-neutral fuels.
– Competition means production of carbon-neutral fuel
alternatives must accelerate if emission-reduction goals are
to be met.
– Price fluctuations due to supply uncertainty while
production of carbon-neutral fuels ramps up mean fuel
flexibility will be key for shipowners during the transition
period.

38
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

The availability of carbon-neutral fuels is one main concern for the shipping industry 5.1 Existing fuel-supply chain
striving towards decarbonization. Demand for carbon-neutral fuels for all sectors will
increase as local, regional, and global regulations are tightened and cargo owners
To estimate today’s fuel consumption we use either heavy fuel oil (HFO), light fuel oil (LFO), marine
require low- to zero-emission services to fulfil their own decarbonization targets.
published IMO and IEA data, as well as finally consid- gas oil (MGO) or liquefied natural gas (LNG). Beyond
The current fuel market for shipping is about 280 Mtoe85 per year, mainly fossil fuel, ering activity-based studies using automatic identifi- the fuel consumption reported by the IMO (2022)
and towards 2030 the energy industry is ramping up production of carbon-neutral fuel cation system (AIS) data. We estimate that shipping for ships above 5,000 GT (see Figure 5-1), there is an
alternatives. Our analysis shows that if 30% to 40% of the total expected world supply today consumes about 280 Mtoe of fuel annually. additional amount consumed by ships of less than
of carbon-neutral fuels in 2030 is allocated to shipping, that will be sufficient to cover 5,000 GT.
the annual demand from the industry. However, as shipping will compete with aviation For 2021, the reported fuel oil consumption for ships
and road transportation, and with other industries, production of carbon-neutral fuel of 5,000 gross tonnage (GT) or more in interna- The total bunker volume sold to ships in interna-
tional trade was 209 Mtoe according to (IMO, 2022). tional trade was 213 Mtoe in 2019, according to sales
alternatives needs to accelerate if the emission-reduction goals are to be met.
Almost all (99.9%) the fuel that was reported was figures from IEA. In addition to ships in international

The target for shipping industry decarbonization

can be achieved by combining various measures.
Reducing speed and implementing a wide range of
energy-efficiency measures will reduce the need for
energy, but the final step will rely on carbon-neutral
fuel.

This chapter presents an overview of shipping’s

current consumption of fossil fuels, and a simulation
of demand for carbon-neutral fuels to meet emission
targets. We also reflect on supply and infrastructure
for carbon-neutral fuels towards 2030.

39
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

trade, there is also fuel consumption by the domestic in with a variety of different marine fuels, such as 5.2 Demand for carbon-neutral fuels in shipping
and fishing fleet, reported by IEA as a further MGO, marine diesel oil (MDO), high sulphur fuel oil
57 Mtoe in 2019 (IEA, 2019). LNG consumption rose (HSFO), very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO), and so
from 12.0 Mtoe in 2019 to 14.5 Mtoe in 2021 (IMO, on. The typical blending ratio of biofuel is currently Demand for carbon-neutral fuels in shipping will To meet defined regulatory requirements, shipping
2022), and LNG comprises about 7% of the total in the range 20% to 30% but is also available as be driven by GHG regulations and policies such as companies will seek the most economically
fuel consumption in 2021 for ships above 5,000 GT. 100% biofuel. The bio-blended fuels represent an carbon pricing (see Chapter 3), expectations of cargo favourable GHG emission-reduction measure at any
However, more than 95% of the LNG consumption is available decarbonization option, as it is possible owners and consumers, and access to investors given time. It is therefore assumed that a combi-
boil-off from the cargo on gas carriers and therefore to use the infrastructure in the same way as for and capital. The demand for carbon-neutral fuels is nation of speed reduction and energy-efficiency
not bunkered as fuel. conventional marine bunkering fuel today. Addi- therefore strongly dependent on global, regional, initiatives will ensure individual vessel compliance
tionally, biofuels already have an established infra- and national regulations. in the short term. Based on results from the 2022
Among carbon-neutral fuels, biofuel is the most structure due to their use in multiple sectors (IRENA,
widely used in shipping today and often used as a 2021). For example, Port of Rotterdam sold more
FIGURE 5-2
blend-in with fossil fuels. Biofuels can be blended than 500,000 tons of bio-blended fuels in 2022 and
Simulated results for future demand of carbon-neutral fuels in shipping
Port of Singapore reported a sale of 140,000 tons
FIGURE 5-1 bio-blended fuel, distributed over 90 bunkering Units: Million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe)
Fuel consumption for ships >5,000 GT based on reported operations86. Overall, the sales of bio-blended fuels 350
DCS data to IMO (2021) (IMO, 2022) increased by more than 70% between 2021 and Estimated fossil fuel without measures
Units: Million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) 2022.
300
250
Emission reduction by
14 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.003 reduced energy demand
200 250
26

150 200
63 Emission reduction by use of
Estimated fossil fuel with all measures carbon-neutral fuel
100 150

50 105 100

0 50
O O DO
G ne ls G ol ol
HF LF LN ha fue LP an an
/M Et
Bi
o et
h
Et
h
GO M
M
Source: IMO (2021, 2022). Key: Heavy fuel oil (HFO); liquefied natural gas (LNG); liquefied 0
petroleum gas (LPG); marine diesel oil (MDO); marine gas oil (MGO); light fuel oil (LFO) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

40
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

edition of Maritime Forecast to 2050 (DNV, 2022a), 5.3 Supply of carbon-neutral fuels
we estimate demand for carbon-neutral fuels
towards mid-century in a Decarbonization by 2050
scenario, see Figure 5-2. The estimated demand for When the shipping industry is looking ahead to methane, methanol, ammonia, and hydrogen. These It is expected that the lead time for new production
carbon-neutral fuels takes into account an expected 2030, two central questions are: How much of the fuel types can be used as carbon-neutral fuels for facilities for carbon-neutral fuels is long, depending
increase in shipping activity, as well as the fleet-wide different carbon-neutral fuels will be produced, ships but can also be used as fuel by other sectors on the type of fuel and the size of the plant. As an
impact of speed reduction and implementation of and how much will be available for shipping? Today or for other industrial purposes. For example, the example, in (Wappler, et al., 2022) the lead time is
energy-efficiency measures. This simulated scenario the supply of carbon-neutral fuels is very limited hydrogen derivate ammonia can be used for fertilizer estimated to be 6 to 10 years for green hydrogen
requires about 17 Mtoe of carbon-neutral fuels for for all industries, including shipping. The esti- production and methanol in the chemical industry. projects over 1 GW. It is therefore expected that only
shipping in 2030. mates we present here are therefore based on a We therefore do not focus only on projects aiming a few projects that are not already announced will
comprehensive mapping of ongoing projects and to provide fuel for ships, but all projects aiming to be operational before 2030. Even if the database is
initiatives for carbon-neutral versions of fuel oil, produce a product that can be used as a carbon- comprehensive, it cannot be regarded as complete,
neutral fuel. The comprehensive database for future as some projects are not disclosed to the public for
FIGURE 5-3
5.3 fuel production has been compiled from several various reasons.
Map of planned and existing projects
projects in
in the
the database
databasefor
forproducts
productsthat
thatcan
canbe
beused
usedas
ascarbon-neutral
carbon-neutralfuels
fuelsby
byships,
ships,by capacity other databases87 and other studies, for example
by capacity
(size (sizeand
of bubble) of bubble)
locationand location
(DNV, 2023a) and (DNV, 2023b). The number of To estimate the amounts that can be produced in
projects for production of carbon-neutral fuels is each of the coming years, we have assigned a like-
high: more than 2,200 relevant projects are mapped lihood to each project being completed. The like-
and populated into our database, see Figure 5-3. lihood is based on the project’s current development
However, most of these projects have not yet stage, categorized as concept, pre-investment,
started construction or even reached an investment investment decision, implementation or in operation.
decision. In addition, we have added a delay to the planned
finish date of all projects, using this to define two
There are already biofuels available in the market different scenarios:
today, see (DNV, 2023a), and many new projects
are identified. However, only advanced biofuels88 — High Availability scenario – high probabilities of
are included in our results here. We do not present completion, and one-year delay
results for different types of fuels, as both the
production plans for each fuel and the compe- — Low Availability scenario – low probabilities of
tition with other sectors are uncertain. The focus completion, and two-year delay
has been on identification of the total amount of
carbon-neutral fuel that can be supplied, focusing The available fuel in the High Availability and the
on the short-term availability, which is constrained by Low Availability scenarios is derived as the sum of
existing and planned production capacity. planned output finished by a given year, weighted

41
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

FIGURE 5-4 of the total fuel consumption from shipping today aviation, power production and other sectors
Cross-sector supply of carbon-neutral fuels vs. total shipping demand of about 280 Mtoe. This methanol and ammonia as well as between each shipping segment. The
Units: Million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) are currently produced from fossil sources with fuel suppliers also need to relate to production
3% Ship-
70 ping’s GHG emissions, and these industries will most likely standards and other policy incentives and require-
High
share of compete for the same carbon-neutral methanol and ments which can be general or sector specific,
global
60 energy ammonia towards 2030. impacting the cost, GHG intensity, and quality
use, requirements of production.
280
Mtoe To supply carbon-neutral fuels to shipping, a
50
large-scale build-up of production facilities over Shipping companies will on their side have indi-
Estimated supply of
carbon-neutral fuels to all sectors many years is needed. In this period, the limiting vidual demands for certain fuels, based on price,
Low
40 factor for available carbon-neutral fuels will be the availability, technical readiness on each vessel as
Other production capacity, and not the theoretical upper well as on a fuel’s GHG intensity. Their decisions are
97% indus-
30 tries limit to production. Even for sustainable biofuels also impacted by various policy requirements (e.g.
(see Appendix A.3 and (DNV, 2023a)), there will be CII rating, EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime) and expecta-
a long phase of expansion of production capacity tions from cargo owners, finance institutions, and
20
before the potential is reached. At the same time others. The increasing cost for carbon-neutral fuels
as sustainable biofuel production is increased year- due to competition with other industries can also
Estimated demand from
10
shipping for carbon-neutral by-year, renewable electricity production, electro- make other alternatives more competitive, such as
fuels fuels production, blue ammonia and blue hydrogen onboard carbon capture (medium term) and nuclear
0 production will also be ramped up. propulsion (longer term), see Chapter 7 for a case
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 study on these alternatives.
A central question for the shipping industry is what
the future fuel market will look like. What fuels will Policymakers need to consider how to use the limited
by the assigned probability of completion. Looking challenge is that the energy demand from shipping be made available for shipping and at what price? renewable resources across different sectors. Ideally,
towards 2030, Figure 5-4 shows our high and low represents approximately 10% of the energy Fuel producers need to consider which fuel type(s) energy should be used in such a way as to provide
estimates for supply of all carbon-neutral alternatives demand in the transport sector, and less than 3% of to make, and for which markets. This is decided the largest global GHG emission reduction as early
(for all industries) that also can be used as carbon- the total energy demand in the world. by factors such as access to energy feedstocks as possible, a relevant question both for biofuels
neutral fuels for shipping, compared with the esti- and other inputs, such as sustainable CO2 and and for low-GHG-intensity electricity production. To
mated demand for carbon-neutral fuels from the Furthermore, other industries use ammonia and the availability of storage and distribution infra- accelerate the use of electrofuels in shipping, FuelEU
shipping industry. methanol as feedstock for industrial production structure. Another key aspect is which markets Maritime provides an additional incentive for the use
(for example in the fertilizer and chemical indus- will demand carbon-neutral fuels, and their will- of renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBO),
If all the produced carbon-neutral fuels in 2030 end tries). These industries are currently consuming a ingness to pay. The price elasticity – in other words, even though the renewable energy could be better
up being available to the shipping industry, the total volume of ammonia and methanol equivalent the change in demand because of a change in used to initially replace fossil fuels for producing grid
supply would cover the demand with a margin. The to 120 Mtoe per year, representing more than 40% price – can be expected to vary between shipping, electricity.

42
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

5.4 Outlook on infrastructure for carbon-neutral fuels

It is essential to have sufficient infrastructure in place such fuels, the bunkering infrastructure, distribution, annually transporting in the order of 50 million To take advantage of the existing infrastructure,
for distribution and bunkering, see Figure 5-5. Some and storage capabilities must be prepared for further tonnes (Mt) in total. About 18 Mt to 20 Mt of carbon-neutral methanol and ammonia could be
biofuels and electrofuels can use existing fuel oil expansion in line with demand development. ammonia are transported annually by ship, and mixed with the fossil variants. Certification schemes
infrastructure (bio-MGO, e-MGO) while carbon- about 170 ammonia carriers are in operation, of should be in place enabling selling and using the
neutral liquefied methane (bio-LNG, e-LNG) can use In addition, there is already a significant shipping which 40 ships carry ammonia on a continuous basis carbon-neutral variants from the storage even if the
existing LNG infrastructure. Assuming availability for network for the transport of ammonia and methanol, (IRENA and AEA, 2022). The seaborne transport of physical products are mixed; for example, the Green
methanol was about 30 Mt in 2018, and methanol Gas Certification Scheme90.
is already available in more than 100 major ports
FIGURE 5-5
today, where 47 of those ports have storage facil- For hydrogen, the distribution network is not
Production pathways for
carbon-neutral fuels
ities in excess of 50,000 tonnes89. The map in Figure developed, only small-scale transportation of
5-6 shows the locations of ammonia and methanol hydrogen exists today. However, liquefied hydrogen
terminals globally, where the clusters indicate has been transported at sea as a test91 and several
number of terminals in that area. In total there are projects are in the pipeline for transporting
Bio around 210 existing ammonia terminals and around compressed hydrogen, either in bulk, or in pres-
130 existing methanol terminals with storage infra- surized containers92. In 2021, the world’s first ship-
structure. This infrastructure can possibly serve as to-ship methanol bunkering took place in the Port
a starting point for a distribution network for the of Rotterdam93, and another ship-to-ship bunkering
Electro use of ammonia andFIGURE
methanol
5.6
as fuels for shipping, operation was completed in the Port of Gothenburg
bringing down the ‘last-mile’ distribution cost. in January 202394.

Blue 50
19 30
FIGURE 5-6
Map showing the 28 41
geographical distri- 22
bution per area of 66
existing ammonia and
9
methanol terminals 25
Methanol 8
8
Ammonia 17
5
Source: AFI, 2023
5

CO2 43
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

6
A LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE
ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT
FUEL PRODUCTION
Highlights
We evaluate coming requirements to measure lifecycle
or well-to-wake emissions of marine fuels and run some
numbers, revealing that:
– Well-to-wake emissions from shipping in 2020 were
estimated at more than 1 billion tonnes of CO2e, 16% of it
emitted during fuel extraction, production, and distribution.
– Without fuel production standards and ship-specific
policies for such emissions, GHG emissions from shipping
could shift to production of fuels and may not reduce
shipping’s total GHG impact.
– Future biofuels, electrofuels, and blue fuels for ships are
expected to adhere to emerging production standards, and
to support full decarbonization of shipping.

44
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

Taking into account the lifecycle or well-to-wake emissions of marine fuels is needed to 6.1 Addressing GHG emissions from fuel production
ensure that decarbonizing shipping does not shift emissions to other sectors. Require-
ments on well-to-wake GHG emissions are being introduced, starting with FuelEU Maritime
from 2025 in the EU, and later globally by the proposed well-to-wake GHG fuel intensity Lifecycle emissions related to fuels generally used for replacing existing electricity production
requirement in the IMO. Ship-specific calculation methods for well-to-wake GHG emissions include emissions related to cultivation (of based on fossil fuels. Excess renewable electricity
of marine fuels are maturing, as well as standards and policy incentives for fuel production. biofuels), extraction (of fossil fuels), production, in the grid, or standalone renewable electricity,
distribution and onboard use. A wide range of could be used to produce zero-emission electro-
studies and papers have provided lifecycle assess- fuels. However, this renewable electricity may not
ments and estimated well-to-wake GHG emissions be available all the time and may need to be supple-
In this chapter, we first provide an assessment on for various fuel types and production pathways in mented by grid electricity to maintain a steady load,
how well-to-tank emissions from fuel production combination with onboard energy converters – see, or production would need to be reduced.
will develop and be addressed through emerging for example, (Brynolf, et al., 2023; Ricardo, 2022b).
fuel standards and requirements. We then calculate The studies show large variations due to different Emerging fuel standards, incentives and require-
the current well-to-wake GHG emissions from assumptions and setting of system boundaries. ments (see Section 3.2 and list in Appendix A.1)
shipping, and how they can develop with and Most of these studies estimate the upstream support this approach and do no not require or
without requirements addressing lifecycle GHG emissions based on very specific production incentivize only fuels that are based on 100%
emissions. pathways and circumstances. For example, for renewable sources and have zero well-to-tank GHG
the well-to-tank emissions for electrofuels which emissions. The current GHG emission thresholds,
are based on hydrogen from electrolysis, some measured as gCO2e per unit of energy, across
studies assume that all electricity is provided from various standards and policy instruments are about
renewable sources with zero GHG emissions (e.g., 50% to 70% below the fossil fuel references of 89
(Lindstad, Lagemann, Rialland, Gamlem, & Valland, to 96 gCO2e/MJ. The thresholds apply to both
2021; MMMCZCS, 2022)), while others use the GHG hydrogen from electrolysis and from reforming
intensity of the electricity provided to the grid (e.g. of natural gas with CCS, as well as biofuels. We
(Brynolf, et al., 2023)). expect that production of biofuels, electrofuels,
and blue fuels will all adhere to these standards,
The expansion of renewable electricity production with some regional variations, setting an upper
will happen gradually and take time (DNV, 2022b). boundary for well-to-tank GHG emissions from
A large part of this renewable electricity would be carbon-neutral fuels.

45
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

6.2 Projection of well-to-wake emissions to 2050

In last year’s edition of Maritime Forecast to 2050 well-to-wake GHG intensity is set to an average of
(DNV, 2022a) we presented 24 different scenarios 91 gCO2e/MJ for all the alternative fuels, which is the
for decarbonization and the energy transition in reference used in FuelEU Maritime.
shipping. The decarbonization targets were assumed
to be achieved with carbon-neutral fuels defined 80% reduction of well-to-wake GHG intensity: This
as having no net GHG emissions.95 However, and as is a scenario where there is a ship-specific well-
discussed in the previous section, decarbonizing the to-wake GHG-intensity requirements trajectory in
fuel-supply chain will take time. We do not expect combination with regional and national general (i.e.
the majority of fuels supplied to the shipping sector not specifically targeting shipping) fuel production
to be fully carbon-neutral before closer to 2050. In standards. As carbon-neutral fuels, shipping uses
addition, there will also be emissions of methane advanced biofuels; electrofuels made primarily
(CH4)96 and nitrous oxide (N2O) – both potent GHGs – from renewable sources; blue fuels with at least
during onboard use, which needs to be considered. 90% capture rate; or a fossil and biofuel blend with
onboard carbon capture, all having well-to-wake
To show the impact of addressing well-to-wake GHG emissions according to current fuel standards
emissions of energy, we consider two scenarios and starting at a 70% reduction (27 gCO2e/MJ) in GHG
estimate the total well-to-wake GHG emissions for the intensity relative to fossil fuels (91 gCO2e/MJ) in 2023
world fleet to 2050, assuming that shipping follows and strengthened gradually to an 80% reduction
a Decarbonization by 2050 trajectory. Note that this (19 gCO2e/MJ) in 2050 in line with the ship-specific
trajectory is not fully in line with the 2030 and 2040 requirements in FuelEU Maritime.
checkpoints in the strengthened IMO GHG Strategy.
The assumptions and conversion factors for the
No requirements on well-to-wake emissions: This well-to-tank fuel production emissions, and the tank-
is a worst-case scenario on emissions where the to-wake ship emissions for fossil fuels, are provided
We also expect that the standards and supply Similarly, the question remains whether requirements IMO and other regulators and stakeholders do not in Appendix A.2. We use the share of carbon-neutral
requirements will gradually be strengthened on the ship side will require zero well-to-wake GHG set requirements on sustainability or well-to-wake fuels from scenario 19 from the 2022 edition of
towards 2050 to support decarbonization targets in emissions. FuelEU Maritime ultimately requires an GHG emissions of fuels, and there are no production Maritime Forecast to 2050, but we do not make any
shipping and other sectors. This implies that some 80% reduction of well-to-wake GHG emission from standards. To achieve the decarbonization targets, assumption on which fuel type will be used. The
production pathways that are viable with current current fossil fuels in 2050, while the IMO has stated shipping uses conventional biofuels, electrofuels share of carbon-neutral fuels does not vary signif-
GHG thresholds may be phased out and replaced that lifecycle emissions should be taken into account, made from grid electricity, or grey fuels made from icantly between the scenarios. The results of the
with production pathways with even lower emissions. but has not explicitly set an intensity target for fuels. fossil sources without onboard carbon capture. The calculations are shown in Figure 6-1.

46
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

The CH4 emissions in 2020 are estimated to have

been 9.4 MtCO2e, 0.9% of the total tank-to-wake FIGURE 6-1
GHG emissions, and the N2O emissions to have been Comparing
FIGURE 6.1 well-to-wake GHG emissions in a scenario without policies and regulations (left) and with production standards and ship regulations (right). For fossil fuels the
11.2 MtCO2e, 1.3% of total GHG emissions. Due to emissions are split into well-to-tank GHG emissions (i.e. extraction, production, and transport) and tank-to-wake CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions (i.e. onboard energy conversion
Comparing well-to-wake GHG emissions in a scenario without policies and regulations (left) and with production standards and ship regulations (right). For fossil fuels the emissions are split
and slip). For other fuels we show the total well-to-wake GHG emissions. On the right-hand panel we also compare with the GHG emissions if all ships globally follow the
the increased uptake of LNG on newbuilds, CH4 into well-to-tank GHG emissions (i.e. extraction, production, and transport) and tank-to-wake CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions (i.e. onboard energy conversion and slip). For other fuels we show
requirement trajectory in FuelEU Maritime, showing that it is generally in line with our scenario with fuel production standards.
the total well-to-wake GHG emissions. On the right panel we also compare with the GHG emissions if all ships globally follow the requirement trajectory in FuelEU Maritime, showing that it
emissions are projected to increase to a peak of 33.4 is generally in line with our scenario with fuel production standards.
MtCO2e in 2034, 4.1% of the total GHG emissions Units: MtCO2e/year No well-to-wake policies With production standards
from shipping at that point. However, the total GHG and regulations and ship regulations
1 200
intensity of fossil fuels decreases towards 2050 when
including CO2 and N2O emissions.
1 000
FuelEU Maritime – well-to-wake
The estimated well-to-tank GHG emissions were GHG emissions if following
164 MtCO2e, 16% of the total well-to-wake GHG 800 requirement trajectory
Well-to-wake GHG emissions
emissions in 2020. As shown in the left panel of from carbon-neutral fuels with
Figure 6-1, unless there are restrictions on sustain- 600 70–80% reduction
ability and well-to-tank GHG emissions of fuels, the Well-to-wake GHG emissions –
fuels without sustainability and
well-to-tank emissions could be shifted upstream upstream production emission
400
to other sectors producing the fuels, thereby restrictions
cancelling the emission-reduction gains achieved Well-to-tank GHG emissions
from fossil fuels
to 2050. This scenario assumes that the alternative 200
Tank-to-wake CO2 emissions
fuels have well-to-wake emissions similar to current Tank-to-wake CH4 emissions
fossil fuels. Both conventional biofuels and grey 0
Tank-to-wake N2O emissions
electrofuels can have higher well-to-wake emissions 2020 2030 2040 2050 2020 2030 2040 2050 Source: DNV

than current fossil fuels (for example (Lindstad,

Lagemann, Rialland, Gamlem, & Valland, 2021)),
and our projection could underestimate the well-
to-wake GHG emissions.
such as FuelEU Maritime. It can also be possible in steps every five years, but in general this would need to be blended with advanced biofuels
The right panel of Figure 6-1 shows that the well- to reduce emission beyond 80% reduction, as trajectory compares well with our scenario with fuel or electrofuels, where the stored biogenic carbon
to-wake GHG emissions can be substantially lower assumed in this scenario, with further restric- production requirements. offsets any uncaptured CO2 emissions (Ricardo; DNV,
if GHG emissions and sustainability requirements tions. In the right panel, we compare the scenario 2023). For example, if the capture rate is 70%, a 30%
are set, ensuring that shipping uses carbon- results with the well-to-wake GHG emissions if all Carbon-neutral fuels can also include use of fossil biofuels or electrofuels blend would achieve close
neutral fuels. This can be achieved with production ships globally follow the requirement trajectory fuels in combination with onboard carbon capture. to zero well-to-wake GHG emissions, and a further
standards and with ship emission requirements in FuelEU Maritime. These requirements increase To achieve zero well-to-wake emissions, a fossil fuel increase in the blend could give negative emissions.

47
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

7
TECHNO-ECONOMIC
EVALUATION OF ONBOARD
CARBON CAPTURE AND
NUCLEAR PROPULSION

Highlights
We assess if onboard carbon capture and nuclear propulsion
could be significant for decarbonizing ships, finding that:
– Onboard carbon capture can be operationally feasible
for our case-study ship, a 15,000 TEU deep-sea container
vessel.
– Onboard carbon capture and nuclear propulsion can
compete with other decarbonization strategies.
– Nuclear propulsion can compete with other
decarbonization strategies if reactor costs are in the lower
range of historical capital expenditure for land-based
nuclear power plants.

48
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

Industry actors are, as noted in Chapter 4, exploring onboard carbon capture and
nuclear propulsion for reducing GHG emissions to comply with the forthcoming GHG
regulations discussed in Chapter 3. Both technologies can have advantages over other
decarbonization solutions when it comes to the likely cross-industry competition for
carbon-neutral energy described in Chapter 4. Neither onboard carbon capture nor
nuclear propulsion require a shift to energy carriers made from highly sought-after
renewable or bio-based energy sources.

To assess the feasibility of onboard carbon capture carbon capture and nuclear propulsion can compete
and nuclear propulsion having a significant uptake economically. To do this, we have evaluated the
in shipping, we have performed a case study of a financial performance of these technologies for the
relevant large deep-sea ship: a 15,000 TEU container case-study ship built in 2030 over five different fuel-
vessel. The first goal of the case study was to assess price scenarios.
whether the use of these technologies is opera-
tionally realistic. The second aim was to compare This chapter first presents the 15,000 TEU contain-
the lifetime costs of other commonly discussed fuel ership case study’s benchmark fuel strategies;
strategies with onboard carbon capture and nuclear showing a large variation in annual costs. We then
propulsion. present one high-cost and one low-cost scenario for
onboard carbon capture, showing that it is opera-
By establishing a benchmark range of costs with tionally feasible, and one high-cost and one low-cost
four different fuel strategies called fuel oil, LNG, scenario for nuclear propulsion, and compare the
methanol and ammonia, we investigate how onboard lifetime costs with the baseline fuel strategies.

49
 CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

7.1 Case study – 15,000 TEU container vessel

The case-study ship represents a frequently used

size for a container vessel plying the trade between In the box we describe the main assumptions Our case study assumptions are as follows
Western Europe and the Far East. The baseline defining the case-study ship and which are
case-study ship is of modern design, intended to used as input for the FuelPath model.
represent the average of vessels of the same type Capacity: 15,000 TEU CO2 price: We assume a CO2 — Ammonia, compatible fuels
and size built between 2015 and 2018. price in EU waters only, using are MGO, fossil ammonia,
Installed power: 68 MW a modelled carbon price from carbon-neutral ammonia,
To explore the financial performance of onboard (main engine and gensets) our Energy Transition Outlook carbon-neutral MGO
carbon capture and nuclear propulsion we have used (DNV, 2022b).
the FuelPath model described in the 2021 edition of Annual energy demand: — Methanol, compatible fuels
Maritime Forecast to 2050 (DNV, 2021a) and used in 24,500 tonnes of VLSFO Interest rate: We assume that the are MGO, fossil methanol,
the FuelSelector service97, see Figure 7-1. equivalent, 67 tonnes per day CAPEX is covered by an annuity carbon-neutral methanol,
(annual average).98 loan with 8% interest, with equal carbon-neutral MGO
annual payments over the ship’s
Annual sailing distance: lifetime. Fuel prices: We have used our
94,000 nautical miles (nm) Marine Fuel Price Mapper model
Benchmark fuel strategies: (DNV, 2022a) to create relevant
FIGURE 7.1 Operation: The ship operates Each fuel strategy is capable fuel-price scenarios. These
FIGURE
The 7-1 model
FuelPath from 2030 to 2060 between of using several different fuels scenarios have been used in
The FuelPath model Europe and the Far East with to satisfy both pilot fuel require- commercial FuelSelector projects
approximately 4.5 round trips per ments and GHG target trajec- and are based on the scenarios
year. We assume 35% of annual tories: presented in the 2022 edition of
energy is used in EU waters. Maritime Forecast to 2050 (DNV,
Ship specs & trade
Type of ship, operational demands — Fuel oil, compatible fuels are 2022a). We use five different
GHG trajectory: We have applied VLSFO, MGO, carbon-neutral scenarios with prices given for
a GHG trajectory going towards MGO every fuel for each year, with the
GHG target trajectories zero in 2050. The CII reference range of values seen in Figure
For a newbuild
line for container vessels has — LNG, compatible fuels are 7-2.
Fuel prices Estimated total cost
of ownership been used to set the starting LNG, MGO, carbon-neutral
Design options point of the GHG trajectory. LNG, carbon-neutral MGO
Alternative fuels, retrofits

50
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

FIGURE 7-2
Estimated high and low prices for fuels 2030-2060

Units: US dollars per gigajoule (USD/GJ)

45 Max
40 Min
35
30
25
20
15
10 Key: Heavy fuel oil (HFO); very low
sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO); marine gas
5 oil (MGO); liquefied natural gas
(LNG); carbon-neutral liquefied
0 natural gas (CN LNG); carbon-neutral
HFO VLSFO MGO LNG Ammonia Methanol CN LNG CN MGO marine gas oil (CN MGO)

FIGURE 7-3
The benchmark
The benchmarkspan of of
span annual costs
annual and and
costs net present value value
net present for thefor
case study
the ship withship
case-study fuel strategies
with fuel using fuel oil,
strategies LNG,fuel oil, LNG,
using
Provided with the above input, the model evaluates strategies under the different price scenarios, ammonia and
ammonia andmethanol as as
methanol well as carbon-neutral
well blend-in
as carbon-neutral for compliance
blend-in for compliance
the economic performance of all the available design to be used as benchmark. The annual costs Annual cost range of decarbonizing a 15,000 TEU container vessel by 2050 Net present value,
8% discount rate
options related to fuel over the lifetime of the vessel, are calculated from the annual payments on
Units: Million US dollars (MUSD) Units: MUSD
expressed in terms of total cost of ownership, and CAPEX, the fuel costs, CO2 price and oper-
65 500
other relevant economic parameters. To make this ating expenditure. With 4 fuel strategies and
60 480
evaluation, the vessel’s GHG performance is assessed 5 price scenarios, we get 20 different results 1
year-by-year and compared against the chosen GHG for annual cost for the years 2030 to 2060, but 55 Maximum annual cost 460
▪ Fuel oil
target trajectory. If the GHG intensity exceeds the present here the annual cost range as well as 50 ▪ LNG
2 440
▪ Methanol 3
target, all measures available to reduce emissions the minimum, 25th percentile, median, 75th 45 ▪ Ammonia 420
are assessed, and the least costly is selected. Thus, percentile and maximum levels of the net 40 4 400
the model minimizes the fuel cost (including CO2 present values (NPV). 35 380
5
cost) of the ship for each year of operation, under the 30 360
constraint that the ship cannot exceed the carbon The annual costs for the fuel oil, LNG, methanol
25 Minimum annual cost 340
intensity of its GHG target trajectory. and ammonia fuel strategies increase towards
20 320
205099, when the GHG trajectory requires an
15 300
In Figure 7-3 we present the span of annual costs increasing share of carbon-neutral versions of 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 1=maximum, 2=75th percentile, 3=median,
of the fuel oil, LNG, methanol and ammonia fuel these fuels. 4=25th percentile, 5=minimum

51
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

7.2 Onboard carbon capture

Assumptions for onboard carbon capture case-study ship
In Section 4.3.5 we described the onboard carbon
capture technology, and in this chapter we compare
the possible economic performance of a ship with CCS industry: Carbon offloading scrubber, CO2 capture unit, and the ship, transported, and stored in with the remaining emissions from
onboard carbon capture with the benchmark cost infrastructure, CO2 transportation storage tanks. a geological storage site at the given the fossil fuel cancelled out by the
range. The case-study ship will run on HFO and, and permanent storage facilities exist deposit cost per tonne of carbon negative well-to-wake emissions from
in addition to the CO2 capture unit and storage and can be used by shipping. OPEX: 5% of CAPEX (1 MUSD) in dioxide. the carbon-neutral fuel.
tanks, the system will also have a scrubber for SOX additional OPEX per year compared
and pre-treatment of the exhaust. There are several Cargo capacity: Assuming the same to fuel-oil benchmark ship. The addi- — High, 80 USD/tCO2 Offload frequency: The CO2 storage
uncertainties in the economic performance of cargo carrying capacity for all fuel tional OPEX is expected due to main- capacity of 4,000 m³ means that we
onboard carbon capture, like CAPEX and OPEX, and strategies. tenance and replacement of solvents — Low, 40 USD/tCO2 assume the ship will have to offload
to address the uncertainty of the costs, two different used in the capture process. CO2 twice each trip (e.g. from east to
cases for an onboard carbon capture system are CO2 purity: Purity levels of captured CO2 storage on board: Assume west) to reach a 70% capture rate.101
evaluated. We have chosen to look at two param- CO2 are aligned with storage Fuel penalty: The fuel penalty is the tanks for liquefied CO2 with storage The ships used as the basis for the case
eters that we assess to have the greatest impact on provider’s requirements. additional energy used to capture volume of 4,000 m³. For comparison, study typically have several port calls
the final performance of onboard carbon capture, CO2 when operating at the design an LNG-powered 15,000 TEU vessel on each trip, hence simultaneous oper-
the fuel penalty (the extra energy used for operating GHG compliance: Can use captured maximum annual carbon capture could have 12,000 m³ of LNG for ations combining loading/offloading
the capture unit) and the CO2 deposit cost (the sum and stored CO2 to reduce carbon rate. These two numbers are based fuel, equivalent to the energy of of containers and offloading of CO2
of the CO2 transport and storage costs). intensity for regulatory compliance. on a review of CCS studies and 6,700 m³ HFO. could be considered.
To get to net-zero emissions, carbon- discussions with industry actors.
neutral drop-in fuels will be used in Capture rate: Without carbon- We construct two scenarios for the
addition to carbon capture. — High, 30% additional energy capture fuel penalty and carbon- ship with onboard carbon capture
consumption neutral fuels, the ship would emit with variations in fuel penalty and
Carbon price: Carbon pricing regu- 8,400 tCO2 per trip from east to CO2 deposit costs:
lations like the EU ETS do not count — Low, 15% additional energy west, or west to east. With a high
captured CO2 as emitted. consumption fuel penalty of 30%, the total CO2 — High CCS
produced is 10,920 t per trip. We — High fuel penalty (30%)
Compatible fuels: HFO, MGO, CO2 deposit cost: Based on studies assume a maximum annual capture — High CO2 deposit cost (80 USD/t)
carbon-neutral MGO (IEA, 2020) and discussions with rate of 70%, for a total of 7,644 tCO2
industry actors, we use two different captured per trip. Net-zero can be — Low CCS
CAPEX: 20 MUSD100 additional costs for depositing the captured achieved with approximately 30% — Low fuel penalty (15%)
CAPEX (12.5% increase) for CO2. This CO2 is discharged from blend-in of carbon-neutral MGO, — Low CO2 deposit cost (40 USD/t)

52
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

Due to variations in the fossil-fuel prices (HFO) The Low CSS scenario performs well compared with mean of NPV for the other strategies, while the Low
and the carbon-neutral fuel prices (bio-MGO the other fuel strategies in this case study. This can in CCS case performs better than three-quarters of the
and e-MGO) over the five price scenarios, the part be explained by the comparatively low price of fuel oil, LNG, methanol and ammonia strategies.
two onboard carbon capture scenarios have a HFO used in the scenarios, and in part by the costs
range of annual costs similar to the benchmark of operating the onboard carbon capture unit and By comparing the total costs of supplied energy
If carbon capture ship tech­nologies can cost range seen in Figure 7-3. In Figure 7-4 depositing CO2 compared with the cost of buying a for the most commonly discussed carbon-neutral
reach low fuel penalties and a CCS industry we overlay the bands of annual costs for the larger share of carbon-neutral fuels. The High CCS fuels with these two scenarios for onboard carbon
can offer the low CO2 deposit costs used High CCS and Low CCS scenarios over the scenario performs around the middle of the strat- capture, we see that if carbon capture ship tech-
benchmark band of annual costs, in addition to egies considered. When looking at the net present nologies can reach low fuel penalties and a CCS
here, there can be an economic case for comparing the net present value (NPV) ranges values of the fuel oil, LNG, methanol and ammonia industry is developed that can offer the low CO2
onboard carbon capture. for the CCS scenarios with the benchmark fuel strategies and comparing them with onboard carbon deposit costs used here, there can be an economic
strategies. capture cases, the High CCS case end up close to the case for onboard carbon capture.

FIGURE 7-4
Range of case study annual costs (left) and net present value (right) for Low CCS and High CCS onboard carbon capture
scenarios compared to the benchmark

Annual cost range of onboard carbon capture and storage – Low and High scenarios Net present value,
8% discount rate
Units: Million US dollars (MUSD) Units: MUSD
65 500
60 480
▪ Fuel oil 1
55 ▪ LNG 460
▪ Methanol
50 ▪ Ammonia 2 440
3
45 CCS high 420
40 4 400
CCS low
35 380
5
30 360
25 340
20 320
15 300
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 1=maximum, 2=75th percentile, 3=median,
4=25th percentile, 5=minimum Onboard carbon capture can drive demand for specially built CO2 tankers

53
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

7.3 Nuclear propulsion

In Section 4.3.6 we discussed nuclear propulsion costs for merchant vessels, we construct High Nuclear the Three Mile Island accident occurred, generally a ship if produced as part of a series of identical small
for ships, and in this chapter we compare nuclear and Low Nuclear scenarios for the costs of the case- resulting in extensive project delays, and US plants modular reactors (SMRs).
propulsion for our case-study ship to the four fuel study ship with nuclear propulsion. The reactor costs have had CAPEX102 ranging from 2,000 USD/kW to
strategies described in Section 7.1 in the case-study in these scenarios are based on literature (Houtkoop, almost 11,000 USD/kW. South Korean nuclear power Due to the high costs and lengthy procedure for
box. The CAPEX for a nuclear reactor propulsion Visser, & Sietsma, 2022) (Lovering, Yip, & Nordhaus, plants built between 2000 and 2010 had CAPEX licensing a given reactor design (i.e. obtaining
system is uncertain, though it is likely to be high, 2016) (Eide, Chryssakis, & Endresen, 2013) and discus- around 2,000 USD/kW, presumably due to standard- required regulatory approval), there can be a smaller
perhaps one to two times the CAPEX of the ship itself. sions with industry actors. ization and a predictable regulatory regime. There range of reactor sizes than engine sizes for a ship
Leasing of nuclear reactors is being discussed to alle- will be cost differences between reactors for land and designer to choose from. Designs should then
viate issues with financing, cash flow, and risk for the For land-based nuclear power plants, the CAPEX varies sea. For example, ship reactors will typically be smaller be optimized for revenue in addition to costs, for
shipowner. For the nuclear-powered ship we therefore significantly between countries and over different than reactors in existing nuclear power plants on land, example by installing a larger and more costly reactor
assume a leasing solution for the reactor with related periods (Lovering, Yip, & Nordhaus, 2016). Many US which could lead to higher specific CAPEX, while there allowing for higher speeds and higher revenue. In this
systems and services. Due to the uncertainty in reactor nuclear power plants were under construction when could be lower licensing costs for a nuclear reactor for case study we only look at costs and omit this aspect.

Our assumptions for the case-study ship with nuclear propulsion are as follows
Regulatory and public accep- auxiliary engines for peak loads — Gensets: 24 MW OPEX: Additional OPEX assumed toring, decommissioning fund, — Annual leasing cost high,
tance: The ship is allowed to trade in and take-me-home capabilities, and included in leasing costs, extra crew costs and more. The 24.7 MUSD
enough ports and waters that it can fuel tanks for the same purpose, — Batteries: 2 MW annual leasing cost, including both
have the same revenue as the other battery, steam generator, steam Nuclear reactor costs: We CAPEX and OPEX, is then used in — Low Nuclear scenario
case-study fuel strategies. turbines and electromotors for — Electric motors: 56 MW construct a High Nuclear and a the FuelPath model to calculate the — Specific CAPEX,
electric propulsion. Low Nuclear scenario, by assuming case study economics. 4,000 USD/kW
Cargo capacity: The same Compatible fuels: MGO, a cost for the 42 MW reactor — CAPEX, 168 MUSD
cargo carrying capacity as the — Nuclear reactor: 42 MW, nuclear fuel, carbon-neutral (including initial fuel), then we — High Nuclear scenario — Annual cost for
benchmark fuel strategies. providing 98% of annual energy MGO calculate a leasing cost based on — Specific CAPEX, CAPEX 14.8 MUSD, and
to the ship. Estimates for volume an annuity loan over the ship’s 6,000 USD/kW for OPEX 2.5 MUSD
Energy conversion system: The and weight of the reactor point CAPEX: 14.5 MUSD additional lifetime with 8% interest for the — CAPEX, 252 MUSD — Annual leasing cost low,
reactor will cover most of the to decreased installed volume CAPEX (9% increase), without CAPEX, with an additional 2.5 — Annual cost for 17.3 MUSD
energy demand. In addition to and weight compared with the the reactor, compared with MUSD in OPEX. The OPEX103 CAPEX 22.2 MUSD, and for
the reactor, the system will have other fuel strategies. mono-fuel (MF) VLSFO. includes refuelling, remote moni- OPEX 2.5 MUSD

54
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

The results for the High Nuclear and Low Nuclear GHG limits are tightened, as can be seen from
scenarios are shown in Figure 7-5. The graph on the more or less stable annual costs of nuclear
the left side shows the annual costs, including compared with the benchmark cost range that
annualized CAPEX, annual OPEX, fuel cost and increases from 2030 to decarbonization in 2050.
carbon cost, while the net present value is shown to
the right. By comparing the total costs of supplied energy of
the most commonly discussed carbon-neutral fuels
Figure 7-5 shows the annual costs for nuclear with two scenarios for costs for nuclear propulsion,
propulsion compared with the four benchmark we see that if nuclear reactors are developed that
fuel strategies based on fuel oil, LNG, methanol can reach the lower range of cost levels described
or ammonia as the ship is decarbonized. Nuclear here, there can be an economic case for nuclear
propulsion will be increasingly competitive as the propulsion.

FIGURE 7-5
Annual costs and net present value for the High Nuclear and
Low Nuclear
Annual scenarios
cost range of nuclear – Low and High scenarios Net present value,
8% discount rate
Units: Million US dollars (MUSD) Units: MUSD
65 500
Nuclear high
60 480
1
55 460
▪ Fuel oil
50 2 440
▪ LNG
▪ Methanol 3
45 ▪ Ammonia 420
40 4 400
35 Nuclear low 380
5
30 360
25 340
20 320
15 300
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 1=maximum, 2=75th percentile, 3=median,
4=25th percentile, 5=minimum

55
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

8
GREEN SHIPPING CORRIDORS
FOR ACCELERATING
THE UPTAKE OF
CARBON-NEUTRAL FUELS

Highlights
We suggest how creating green shipping corridors can
be accelerated to speed uptake of carbon-neutral fuels,
concluding that:
– Green shipping corridors can indeed boost uptake of
carbon-neutral fuels.
– DNV’s experience-based, three-step approach can assist
relevant stakeholders getting started with green shipping
corridors from early idea phase onwards.
– Green shipping corridors can support public policy goals
and create opportunity for private stakeholders seeking to
be in the forefront of green shipping and fuel supply.

56
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

By addressing and resolving barriers on a manageable scale, green shipping corridors 8.1 What is a green shipping corridor?
can speed uptake of carbon-neutral fuels. The many barriers hindering uptake include,
among others, risk, cost, and supply. By focusing on a specific green shipping corridor,
There are several definitions of green shipping all vessels sailing between ports in a green shipping
the technical, practical, organizational, legal, political and financial barriers can be
corridors.105 The Clydebank Declaration states that corridor would be required to be carbon-neutral, or
identified. They can be overcome by engaging and involving relevant stakeholders in they are simply ‘zero-emission maritime routes to participate in the corridor partnerships.
a more practicable way than on a global scale. More than 25 green shipping corridor between two (or more) ports’. It further declares
initiatives have already been announced. All are in the early planning phase, facing that fully decarbonized fuels or propulsion technol- A green shipping corridor concept is sketched out in
key issues such as the fuel cost gap, fuel supply, and the need for coordinated action ogies should not lead to additional GHG emissions Figure 8-1. It involves an ecosystem of many actors
among stakeholders. In this chapter, we provide guidance and a stepwise approach for to the global system through their lifecycles. We such as cargo owners and charterers, ports, ship-
stakeholders aiming to establish green shipping corridors. interpret this use of ‘zero-emission’ as meaning that owners and operators, energy suppliers, financial
any carbon-neutral106 fuel can be used in a green institutions, authorities, and others that need to
shipping corridor, such as carbon-neutral methanol, cooperate in a green shipping corridor.
methane, diesel, ammonia and hydrogen, as well as
The approach builds on DNV’s experience over (Chapter 5), needed to operate these ships. This battery-electric propulsion, onboard carbon capture Overview of announced green shipping corridors
more than a decade with existing green shipping is a great challenge, and a wide range of relevant and nuclear propulsion. It is also worth mentioning The pledges made by Clydebank Declaration
corridors in Norway, pilots in the Green Shipping policies, regulations, and R&D activities have been that the Clydebank Declaration recognizes that not signatories signal a political will to help accel-
Programme, pre-piloting work in the Nordic initiated across the globe. One such policy initi-
Roadmap project, and other large-scale joint ative is the Clydebank Declaration, in which more FIGURE 8-1
Illustration of a green shipping corridor from port to port
industry projects. than 20 countries have committed themselves to Illustration of a green shipping corridor from port to port
develop at least six green shipping corridors by
To decarbonize shipping, the industry is devel- 2025, and many more by 2030.104
GREEN SHIPPING CORRIDOR
oping more energy-efficient ships, technology to
use new fuels (Chapter 4), and the infrastructure,
including carbon-neutral fuel production

Vessel

Port A Port B

Cargo Cargo

Sustainable energy supply

57
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

erate shipping decarbonization through the green types, and technologies. An overview of 30 green
corridors concept. To date, numerous plans to shipping corridors announced so far is illustrated
develop such corridors have been announced by in Figure 8-2. All are in the very early planning
different initiators, involving varied ship types, fuel phase. However, they demonstrate the eagerness of

FIGURE 8-2
Thirty announced green shipping corridor initiatives as of June 2023, mapped as ports, corridors, port-to-port corridors,
and corridor networks
Turku
Oslo
Stockholm
Tallin
Gothenburg

Tyne Roenne
Gdańsk
Hamburg
Rotterdam
Dover Antwerp
Dunkirk Ghent
Calais

Port
Corridor
Port-to-port corridor
Corridor network

1 Shanghai – Los Angeles (LA) 11 Halifax – Hamburg 21 Gothenburg – Rotterdam

2 LA-Long Beach – Singapore 12 South Africa – Europe Iron Ore Corridor 22 European Green Corridor Network
3 LA – Tokyo –Yokohama 13 Singapore – Rotterdam 23 Turku – Stockholm (Decatrip)
4 Busan – Seattle/Tacoma 14 Green Corridors Spain 24 Nordic Regional Corridors
5 Pacific Northwest – Alaska 15 Clean Tyne Corridor 25 Suez Canal
6 US – Fiji – Panama 16 Dover – Calais and Dover – Dunkirk 26 SILK Alliance
7 Gulf of Mexico 17 H2 powered North Sea Crossing 27 Australia – East Asia Iron Ore
8 Great Lakes – St. Lawrence 18 Rotterdam – West-Coast Norway 28 Rotterdam – Algeciras*
9 Chilean Green Corridor Network 19 Gothenburg – North Sea Port 29 QUAD Shipping Taskforce*
10 Antwerp – Montreal 20 Oslo Fjord – Rotterdam 30 G7 Corridors*
*not shown in map Source: DNV, 2023

58
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

industry actors to follow up on these political ambi- nology maturity and cost reductions, accelerated FIGURE 8-3
tions. Undoubtedly, more green shipping corridors development of rules and regulations for safety, Simplified illustration of main objectives (boxes on top) and possible initiators (boxes at the bottom)
of green shipping corridor projects
will be announced in the coming months and years. development of new supporting policies, growing
It remains a great challenge, however, to convert market demand for green shipping services and
plans and ambitions into reality. green contracts. Main objectives

The initiators and goals of a specific green shipping Moreover, succeeding with a set of green shipping
Emission-reduction-centric: Focusing on the
corridor will vary from project to project. Figure 8-3 corridors can also contribute directly to decarbon- Technology-centric: The main objective is
emission-reduction potential of establishing
to demonstrate the technology in a green
presents a simplified illustration of typical objectives izing shipping, especially if the corridors are heavily a green shipping corridor on the specific
shipping corridor and get experience.
trading route.
(on top) and initiators (bottom) of green corridor trafficked and CO2 -intensive. However, the most
projects. Note that such projects may represent a important outcome of realizing green corridors
blend of what is presented in Figure 8-3. will be indirect – through allowing for learning on
critical issues and facilitating the reduction of risks
Every green corridor being realized aims to and costs. These benefits can be generalized and
contribute to development steps along several applied on a regional and global scale, leading
different axes. Examples include increased fuel to scaling through a multitude of mechanisms,
production and infrastructure development, tech- generally described as diffusion.107

Vessel
Port Port

Beyond decarbonization, which barriers to autonomy (Tsvetkova, 2022). Some

green shipping corridors and digitalization can be corridors, such as Rotterdam Government Cargo owner Shipowner Port Fuel suppliers
can impact on digitalization handled and resolved on a to Singapore, recognize the Government and/or Industry actor who Industry actor who Industry actor who Industry actor who
need to become not only authorities who have wants to reduce wants to be a wants to be a wants to secure
in the maritime industry. manageable scale. Autonomy
committed to estab- emissions, including front-runner in green relevant port in the demand for the
One good example is in will impact on fuel-saving green corridors but also lishing corridors or Scope 3 emissions. shipping. future for ships energy carrier they
the development of digital potential as reported by digital corridors108 facili- reaching emission- running on green produce and deliver.
reduction goals and fuels.
trade lanes and autonomous (Ziajka-Poznańska, 2021), and tating seamless movement of facilitating the project
vessels, because a green also in enhancing the effec- vessels and cargo, and opti- for their implement-
ation.
shipping corridor will be a tiveness of the logistics chain, mizing just-in-time arrival of
closed transport system in including multimodal aspects vessels from port to port.

Possible initiators

59
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

8.2 DNV’s stepwise approach assists stakeholders starting out on green shipping corridors

To accelerate development of green shipping Nordic roadmap project110,and other large-scale Moving from idea to realization will take time and tantly, identify cost gaps and cost-sharing mechanisms
corridors we introduce a three-step approach. joint industry projects. involve several phases and milestones, as illustrated such as procurement policies, green financing, and
This builds on DNV’s experience over more than a in Figure 8-5. In our experience, the way in which the government incentives, to bridge the cost gap.111
decade with existing green shipping corridors in The three-step approach builds on a concept paper start of the process is handled is critical. It is when
Norway (see boxes in Figure 8-5), pilots in the Green (DNV, 2022f) developed as part of the Nordic stakeholders should strive to reduce the risk of unnec- The purpose of the three-step approach is to
Shipping Programme109, pre-piloting work in the Roadmap project. essary delays, establish momentum and, most impor- accelerate the process by guiding relevant stake-

Finding ways to share risk and close the signif- FIGURE 8-4
icant fuel cost gap is critical for realizing green Indication of how to close the price gap between carbon-neutral and fossil fuels.
Without carbon price and CfDs, the whole price gap will be green premium
shipping corridors. The EU’s adoption of
shipping into the EU ETS, and the IMO’s work
Zero-emission fuel
on market-based instruments, are policies for
decreasing the cost gap (Chapter 3). However, Green premium
they are not expected to be sufficient to create
price parity with conventional fuels within this
decade. Therefore, other cost- and risk-sharing
Fuel price

mechanisms, such as Contract for Difference Contracts for difference (CfDs)

(CfD, see Figure 8-4) will be needed to support Price
first movers developing green shipping gap Price
corridors. If carbon prices or other measures gap

are insufficient to reduce the price gap, stake- Carbon price

holders could have to pay a green premium for
carbon-neutral fuel, a cost which most cargo
Fossil fuel
owners are not expected to wish to cover.
Timeline Source: DNV, 2022

60
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

holders in the right direction from the initial idea exploring all different fuel and technology
phase, focusing on early identification of key FIGURE 8-5 options.
barriers and actions for overcoming potential Main phases from initial idea to realization of a green shipping corridor

showstoppers. Importantly, starting with our Step 1 – Data collection and assessment
three-step approach for investigating the feasi- Here, relevant data is collected and assessed
bility of a green shipping corridor should be for the five main elements required for defining
a low-hanging fruit and involve low costs for a green shipping corridor: cargo type, volumes
the stakeholders involved. While our approach and frequency; design of transport system;
covers only the initial feasibility phase (see onboard energy carrier; energy supply; and
Figure 8-5), we have experience guiding projects financial instruments and support mechanisms.
through the whole process. However, proposed Green ammonia-powered bulk carrier Shipowner Egil Ulvan’s With Orca ASKO MARITIME’s zero-emission In Figure 8-7, we further elaborate on each of
approaches covering all phases from idea to real- Pilot initiated by the Green Shipping Aims to be the first zero-emission self- autonomous cargo ferries these main elements, including key output.
Programme, and led by the Grieg discharging hydrogen-fuelled bulk Two fully-electric cargo ferries operat-
ization exist.112 Group, investigates ammonia as fuel on carrier, planned to enter a long-term ing between Moss and Horten in the
their L-class Open-hatch bulk ship transport contract with cargo owners Oslofjord in Norway carrying groceries Note that these main elements can vary in time.
A large number of papers and studies address operating deep-sea. The pilot study is Felleskjøpet Agri and Heidelberg for NorgesGruppen. Initially, the ships Hence, the assessment should consider the
finalized, and several gaps hindering Cement. This project started as a pilot will sail with a limited crew, with the
green corridors. For more information see the realization have been identified. These study facilitated by the Green Shipping goal that these vessels in the future will current status and possible future develop-
Nordic Roadmap Knowledge Hub.113 need to be closed before contracts Programme. be operated completely autonomously, ments. As an example, larger trading volumes
can be signed. and monitoring provided from shore in
Horten. This project was initially a pilot will potentially require more vessels, which
Our stepwise approach consists of three main project in the Green Shipping again will result in a need for a greater energy
Programme.
steps as shown in Figure 8-6. Step one involves supply.
data collection and feasibility assessment of a
specific green shipping corridor. Step two is The key output from this step is a set of relevant
the onboarding of relevant stakeholders. Step data collected and assessed for this specific
Our three-
three is the building of business cases for each step approach green shipping corridor, such as specific
stakeholder and identifying bottlenecks for transport system information (cargo type,
realization. The starting point for the stepwise Action plan for Final corridor Contracts Vessel(s) in volumes, frequencies), fleet mix, operational
closing the gaps concept signed operation
approach is the assumption that one or several profiles, relevant energy carriers, mapping
stakeholders have an idea of a possible green potential stakeholders to involve, and potential
shipping corridor to explore. The framework is Phases Feasibility Development Execution financial support schemes. In addition, we
general and flexible and can be used for facili- provide an initial high-level techno-economic
tating collaboration and exploring the feasibility assessment of the potential energy carriers and
of promising green shipping corridors. Note that Estimated technologies to use on board the vessel(s). This
time 1–2 years 1–3 years 2–3 years
the stepwise approach is technology-neutral, is key information that forms the basis for initial
meaning that it can be applied to projects discussions in Step 2, and further in Step 3.

61
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

Step 2 – Onboard relevant stakeholders of this step is a common agreement between the FIGURE 8-7
Next, we gather the relevant stakeholders and, necessary stakeholders to participate in this corridor Main elements required for defining a green shipping corridor – not all stakeholders need to be involved in Step 1
based on the key findings in Step 1, try to motivate partnership, and to further explore bottlenecks and
them to join the green corridor partnership. Having develop business cases for each stakeholder, with
all stakeholders around the same table, as seen in the ultimate goal of producing an overall green
The cargo owner(s) in the corridor have specific transport needs (cargo volume, passengers, etc.)
Figure 8-8, facilitates early identification of barriers corridor business case in Step 3. with a certain frequency. Hence, in many ways, the transport need of cargo owners is the main
and actions for solving these. Typical bottlenecks boundary condition of the transport system. A key output from this element is collated data on past,
are cost gaps, overly risky investments, lack of fuel Step 3 – Build business cases Cargo type, volumes present and future cargo types, volumes, and frequencies.
and frequency
supply and bunkering infrastructure, and low tech- In this step, each stakeholder investigates their
nological maturity. These barriers can be structured business case, their ‘reason’ for participating in the
and mapped in a scorecard for each energy carrier green shipping corridor. Stakeholder perspectives With cargo types, volumes, and frequencies determined, the transport system can be designed.
(DNV, 2020) (DNV, 2023). Moreover, our experience is on opportunities and concerns will differ. For any This includes defining the number of vessels needed to fulfill transport demand, vessel type(s), size,
that barriers often occur in the intersection between potential green shipping corridor, the following key operational profile. For identifying synergies with other cargo owners to reduce ballasting and
Design of increase the utilization of the vessel(s), AIS data analysis can be used. A key output from this
the stakeholders. A key to solving these barriers will issues are among those which are likely to need element is the energy demand for the vessel(s).
transport system
be close collaboration built on trust. The end point addressing:

With the energy demand defined for the vessel(s), relevant energy carriers such as ammonia,
FIGURE 8-6 hydrogen, methanol or batteries, and wind-assisted propulsion systems, and so on can be assessed
DNV’s stepwise for onboard use. One key aspect to consider is energy density, which varies significantly between
approach for the energy carriers. A key output will be data to use in an overall onboard barrier assessment for
assisting relevant
STEP 3 Onboard each relevant energy carrier, focusing on barriers such as energy density, technical maturity, costs,
stakeholders getting energy carrier safety. Note that various energy carriers can have design implications that need to be considered.
started and to assess STEP 2 BUILD BUSINESS
the feasibility of a CASES
specific green
ONBOARD RELEVANT
shipping corridor STEP 1 STAKEHOLDERS A supply of relevant energy carriers is central for it to be a viable option. Hence, for each relevant
energy carrier an assessment of the status for the fuel availability (production, distribution and
DATA COLLECTION bunkering infrastructure) is important. A key output will be data focusing on the onshore barriers for
AND ASSESSMENT supplying the energy carriers, such as fuel availability, port readiness, cost, safety zones, and so on.
Energy supply

Critical for the realization of green shipping corridors will be to find ways for sharing risk and
closing the significant investment and operational cost gaps. In this regard, early identification and
Established partnership mapping of financial instruments and supporting schemes relevant for the green shipping corridor
A set of relevant data Identified the is critical. A key output is an overview of the relevant supporting schemes in each country involved
with necessary Financial instruments and
End-point per step collected and assessed critical bottlenecks
stakeholders for the support mechanisms in the corridor, and cost-sharing possibilities among the corridor partners.
for the specific corridor for realization
specific corridor

62
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

— Cargo owner – What will be the unit cost for trans- new fuels? What is the feedstock availability? Can chain, if one stakeholder fails to overcome their From experience, typical bottlenecks for realization are
porting my cargo? What is my risk exposure? Does this corridor support the needed investments? barriers and produce a sound business case, the economic, financial, and organizational barriers rather
paying extra for green transportation make sense Does the corridor provide a stepping-stone to business cases for all stakeholders will fail, and the than technical issues (even if they will also be chal-
in my overall strategy? Are the customers willing to a wider market? What if the green fuel demand green shipping corridor will not be established. lenging). Our stepwise approach facilitates an initial
pay a green premium? from specified ships turns out to be lower than assessment focusing on the real-life showstoppers for
expected? Balancing the perspectives and concerns listed realization. It aims to identify critical stakeholders and
— Shipowner – What is the technical and economic above for the various stakeholders will be an iter- what they need for establishing a sound business case
feasibility of the potential fuels and technologies to — Port – What is the market outlook, and the ative process. We recommend appointing an inde- in the green shipping corridor. As key stakeholders
be applied? Can my investment in this be justified? business case for supplying new fuels on my pendent green corridor coordinator to facilitate this. and bottlenecks are identified, the partnership can
Will this increase my attractiveness in the market docks? Will my investment in infrastructure be The ultimate focus for the coordinator is to facil- call attention to where actions are needed to move
today and in the future? What happens if the relevant profitable? Is the safety zone sufficient? What regu- itate collaboration between stakeholders to define a green shipping corridor from idea to realization.
green fuel becomes unavailable or too expensive? latory barriers are there? What policy incentives? business opportunities and build an overall business Hence, the end point is a common understanding
case for the green shipping corridor. Finding proper between the involved stakeholders on the main bottle-
— Fuel supplier – What is the market outlook, and — Financial institutions – What is the Return on cost- and risk-sharing mechanisms will be important necks on which the rest of the project will have to work
the business case for producing and distributing Investment in green fuels or green ships or new for turning ambitions into actions. to realize the green shipping corridor.
infrastructure? What is my risk exposure?

FIGURE 8-8 — Authorities – How can this corridor be imple- FIGURE 8-9
FIGURE all
Having 8.8necessary stakeholders around the same table Simplified illustration of interconnections between selected stakeholders in a green shipping corridor ecosystem –
mented safely, onshore and onboard? Can
facilitates
Having all collaboration, early identification
necessary stakeholders around theofsame
bottlenecks,
table similar to a series electric circuit, all stakeholders are connected end-to-end, forming a single path for current to flow
and a common understanding of each stakeholder’s
facilitates collaboration, early identification of bottlenecks,
financial support be justified? How can we be
Financial Fuel
motivation
and a common for being in the corridor
understanding of eachpartnership
stakeholder’s sufficiently predictable in our regulation of this institutions Cargo owner Shipowner Fuel producer distributor
motivation for being in the corridor partnership
new field? Can this corridor help us to reach
Authorities Shipowner our emission-reduction goals and support
commitment to the Clydebank Declaration?

Importantly, these issues are interconnected.

Cargo
owner
Ports Resolving them in a green shipping corridor requires
the whole value chain to act, jointly and concur-
rently, as individual stakeholders will be unable to
resolve these issues on their own. This is illustrated
Financial Fuel
institutions producer by analogy in Figure 8-9. In such a system, ‘breaking
the circuit’ at any point will cut the current through Port A
Vessel
Port B
Authorities Port
Fuel
all components, and the lights metaphorically go (fuel bunkering)
distributor out for all the lightbulbs. In the green corridor value GREEN SHIPPING CORRIDOR

63
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

64
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

APPENDIX Name Entity Definition/note Emission threshold

A.1 Fuel production standards

Fossil fuel reference Multiple Fossil fuel reference values varies between standards 89–96 gCO2e/MJ

FuelEU Maritime EU Well-to-Wake GHG intensity requirement for ships 89.3 gCO2e/MJ (2025–29)
Regulations and standards set various definitions 85.7 gCO2e/MJ (2030–34)
and requirement for fuels based on their production 77.9 gCO2e/MJ (2035–39)
62.9 gCO2e/MJ (2040–44)
and use characteristics. Table A-1 provides a list of
34.6 gCO2e/MJ (2045–49)
selected definitions and GHG emission thresholds in 18.2 gCO2e/MJ (2050)
the US, EU, China, and by ICAO, compared to fossil
Sustainable biofuels, Recycled Carbon EU, Renewable Energy Directive (RED)115 Fuels complying with the sustainability and GHG saving 28.2 gCO2e/MJ for RFNBOs and RCFs
fuels and to the shipboard requirements set out in Fuels (RCFs), Renewable Transport Fuels criteria of the EU RED 32.9–47.0 gCO2e/MJ for biofuels depending on
FuelEU Maritime. Currently the IMO has not set any of non-Biological Origin (RFNBO) when the installation started production
definitions or requirements for marine fuels. Advanced biofuels EU, Renewable Energy Directive Biofuels that are produced from the feedstock listed No specific threshold
in Part A of Annex IX of the EU RED, mostly waste
products

Low-carbon hydrogen EU Hydrogen Directive (proposed)116 Hydrogen, the energy content of which is derived from 28.2 gCO2e/MJ
non-renewable sources and which delivers at least a
70% reduction in greenhouse gas emission

Low-carbon hydrogen CertifHy117 Originating from non-renewable origin: nuclear or fossil 37.6 gCO2e/MJ
energy using carbon capture and storage (CCS) and
potentially carbon capture and utilization (CCU)

Green hydrogen CertifHy Originating from renewable sources 37.6 gCO2e/MJ

Renewable Fuel Standard / Advanced US EPA118 At least 50% GHG emission reduction and for cellulosic 37.2–46.5 gCO2e/MJ
biofuels biofuels at least 60% reduction

Clean Hydrogen production standard US DoE119 33.3 gCO2e/MJ

(proposed) (4 kgCO2e/kgH2)

Low Carbon Fuel Standard California Air Resources Board (CARB)120 79.6 gCO2e/MJ (2030 onwards)

Low-carbon hydrogen China Hydrogen Alliance121 120 gCO2e/MJ

(14.5 gCO2e/kgH2)

Clean/renewable hydrogen China Hydrogen Alliance 40.8 gCO2e/MJ

(4.9 gCO2e/kgH2)
TABLE A-1
Fuel definitions and production standards with GHG Sustainable Aviation Fuel ICAO Renewable or waste-derived aviation fuels complying 80–86 gCO2e/MJ
with ICAO’s sustainability criteria, including a 10%
emission thresholds, compared to fossil fuels and to reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions
shipboard requirements under FuelEU Maritime

65
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

A.2 Well-to-wake emission factors

The well-to-tank and tank-to-wake emission produced by 4-stroke engines. No correction taking
conversion factors used in this report for fossil fuels into account that emissions increase at low loads is
are provided in Table A-2. The tank-to-wake factors applied.
for ships built to 2022 are calculated based on
conversion factors from the Fourth IMO GHG study For CO2 and N2O, the same conversion factors are
(IMO, 2020), with some adjustments due to availa- also used for ships built from 2023. The CH4 emis-
bility of data. For CO2, the conversion factors are a sions for LNG- fuelled engines are improving, and
direct function of the carbon content of the fuel. For for all ships built from 2023 and onwards we use
CH4 and N2O, the conversion factors are dependent a reduced emissions factor based on a report by
on the engine type and engine load. For LNG-fuelled Sphera (Sphera, 2021).
ships we distinguish between 4-stroke Otto cycle
engines, 2-stroke low pressure Otto cycle engines, The well-to-tank GHG emissions factors are based
2-stroke high pressure diesel cycle engines, and on the default factors in FuelEU Maritime (European
steam turbines. All auxiliary power is assumed to be Union, 2023).

TABLE A-2
Well-to-tank (WtT) and tank-to-wake (TtW) emissions factors by fossil fuel and engine type

Fuel Engine type TtW CO2 TtW CH4 TtW N2O WtT
[gCH4/kWh] [gN2O/kWh] [gCO2e/MJ]

All Built up to 2022 Built from 2023 All All

HFO All 3.114 0.01 0.01 0.031 13.5

LSFO/MGO All 3.206 0.01 0.01 0.03 13.7

LNG Otto 4-stroke 2.75 5.5 4.0 0.02 18.5

Otto 2-stroke Low Pressure 2.75 2.1 1.0 0.02 18.5

Diesel 2-stroke High Pressure 2.75 0.2 0.2 0.02 18.5

Turbine 2.75 0.04 0.04 0.02 18.5

66
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

A.3 Biofuels A.3.2 Practical considerations of biofuel use

The two sections below are taken from a DNV whitepaper published in June 2023 (DNV, 2023a). A key reason why biofuels are seen as an attractive intended applications on the vessel. Otherwise,
decarbonization pathway for vessels is their ability there is a risk of damage to equipment and loss of
to be used on existing vessels without modifica- power.
A.3.1 Potential biofuel supply tions (i.e. they have drop-in capability). This holds
largely true for bio-methanol and bio-LNG if the Due to lack of long-lasting trials, there is a shortage of
In (DNV, 2023a) the global potential supply of estimate a sustainable and economical potential correct onboard equipment is installed, since they experience with regard to biodiesels and bioliquids
sustainable and economical biofuels was assessed. supply of biofuels of 500–1,300 Mtoe by 2050. This is have practically the same properties as their fossil- and their compatibility with existing onboard
This potential is an estimate of the total global illustrated in Figure A-1. Current global production based counterparts. For biodiesels and bioliquids machinery. The most widely used liquid biofuels in
biofuel production capacity for all sectors, of capacity of sustainable biofuels is around 11 Mtoe/ used to replace fuel oils and distillates, on the shipping are FAME (Fatty Acid Methyl Esters) and
biofuels that are both sustainable and economical. If year and our database indicates that this could other hand, drop-in capability depends on factors HVO (Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil), each of which has
shipping was to decarbonize fully by 2050 primarily grow to 23 Mtoe/year by 2026. Therefore, a major such as what feedstock the biofuel is based on, its own characteristics which should be considered
using biofuels, 250 Mtoe of sustainable biofuels build-up of sustainable biofuel production capacity the production process, and the storage time. It by users. For example, the oxidative stability of FAME
would be needed annually (DNV, 2022a). At the is needed before the full biofuel potential is is therefore important to make sure that the fuel is low, leading to degradation of the fuel during
same time, using stringent sustainability criteria, we reached. specification and quality are compatible with the long-term storage. HVO, on the other hand, has

FIGURE
FIGURE 9.2
A-2
FIGURE 9.1
FIGURE A-1
Key
Key parameters worth
parameters worth investigating
investigatingwhen
whenconsidering
consideringaatransition
transitionto
tobiodiesels
biodieselsand
andbioliquids
bioliquids
Potential of
Potential of global
global supply
supply for
for sustainable
sustainablebiofuel
biofuelcompared
comparedto
tomaximum simulated demand from shipping
maximum simulated demand from shipping
Emission and Additional consumers Non-compatible Stability and
Units: Million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) compliance (life-, MOB-*, work boats) components Mixability storage properties Vessel range

3% Shipping’s
1 400
High share of
global energy
1 200 use,
280 Mtoe
1 000

800 Biofuel potential

for all sectors combined 97% Other Fuel-oil supply system Fuel-oil treatment system Fuel bunkering,
industries Prime mover(s)
600 (booster and conditioning) (setting and purification) storage and transfer
Low
400
Maximum biofuel use
200 in shipping

0 Delivered Combustion properties Lubrication Corrosive and Deposit and Temperature

2030 2040 2050 power and engine adjustments properties acidic properties clogging properties

*MOB boat: man overboard rescue boat

67
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

high oxidation stability, and can be stored for long on vessels built to run on fuel oils, it is important to
periods. investigate some key parameters and areas on the
vessel, see Figure A-2.
In the future, other biofuel types may emerge, and
more specific guidelines will evolve and be estab- To minimize the risk of damage to equipment on the
FIGURE A-3
9.3
lished as more tests are conducted. Before tran- vessel, we recommend the actions and steps given in
sitioning towards use of biodiesels and bioliquids Figure A-3 before a transition to biofuels. Technical aspects of a biofuel
biofuel transition
transition process
processand
andrelevant
relevantitems
itemsrecommended
recommendedto
toconsider
considerfor
foraashipowner
shipowner

BIOFUEL TRANSITION PROCESS

Risk assessment to map Onboard

Initial screening of Implementation
compatibility of relevant preparation and
biofuel alternatives and trialing
biofuel (e.g. HAZID) modifications

RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR SHIPOWNERS

Mapping of biofuel Ensure dialogue with Training and knowledge Ensure proper follow-up,
options: relevant parties such as: sharing with relevant reporting and evaluation
■ Potential involvement of ■ Fuel supplier and/or personnel (onboard crew). after implementation to
third party to provide laboratory (fuel specifica- capture the effects accom-
market intelligence and tion and proper documen- panying a fuel transition
knowledge related to tation). (long- and short-term
various biofuel options. ■ Engine maker (guidelines,
effects of all affected
recommended practice, systems).
compatibility statement,
guarantee).
■ Original equipment
manufacturers of other
relevant subsystems
(guidelines, recommend-
ed practice, compatibility
statement, guarantee).
■ Flag (regulations,
compliance, approvals,
certification).

68
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

69
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

REFERENCES Click on a reference to navigate to the related page

Brynolf, S., Hansson, J., Kanchiralla, F. M., DNV. (2022e). Fuel properties and their Houtkoop, K. C., Visser, K., & Sietsma, IMO. (2020). Fourth IMO GHG study. IMO. gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Intro- Schøyen, H., & Steger-Jensen, K. (2017).
Malmgren, E., Fridell, E., Stripple, H., & consequence for safety and operability. J. (2022). Nuclear reactors for marine duction-to-Advanced-Commercial-Nucle- Nuclear propulsion in ocean merchant
IMO. (2022). Report of fuel oil consumption
Nojpanya, P. (2023). Life Cycle Assessment of DNV report no. 2022-1163, Nordic Roadmap propulsion and power generation systems, ar-for-Maritime.pdf shipping: The role of historical experiments
data submitted to the IMO Ship Fuel Oil
Marine Fuels. Chalmers University of Tech- publication no.1-B/2/2022. Master Thesis. TU Delft. Retrieved from to gain insight into possible future appli-
Consumption Database in GISIS (Reporting Menon. (2022). Infrastructure and bunkering
nology, IVL Swedish Environmental Research https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/ cations. Journal of Cleaner Production,
DNV. (2022f). INSIGHT ON GREEN SHIPPING year 2021). challenges for zero-carbon fuels. Menon
Institute. Retrieved from https://futurefu- object/uuid%3Afb44c464-6936-4ec6-96b1- 152-160. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
CORRIDORS - From policy ambitions to real- publication no.172/2022. Nordic Roadmap
IRENA. (2021). A pathway to decarbonise the jclepro.2017.05.163
elsnordic.com/life-cycle-assesment-of-se- ization. Oslo: Nordic Roadmap Publication 52333ff799e3 publication no.2-B/1/2022.
shipping sector by 2050. Abu Dhabi: Inter-
lected-fuels No. 3-A/1/. SGMF. (2018). Gas as a Marine Fuel. Simul-
IAEA. (2020). Advances in Small Modular national Renewable Energy Agency. MMMCZCS. (2022). NavigaTE well-to-wake taneous Operations (SIMOPs) during LNG
Clara Kay Leng Ng, M. L. (2023). Accidental DNV. (2023). Pre-piloting: Intra-Nordic green Reactor Technology Developments. Position Paper. Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller
IRENA. (2022). Global hydrogen trade to bunkering. Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel.
release of ammonia during ammonia shipping corridor candidates. Oslo: DNV. Retrieved from https://aris.iaea.org/Publica- meet the 1.5°C climate goal: Part II – Tech- Center for Zero Carbon Shipping . Version 1.0.
bunkering: Dispersion behaviour under the DNV. (2023a). Biofuels in shipping. tions/SMR_Book_2020.pdf nology review of hydrogen carriers. Interna-
influence of operational and weather condi- MTF. (2022). Fuels Evaluation Through the Sphera. (2021). 2nd Life Cycle GHG Emission
IEA. (2019). World Energy Outlook 2019. tional Renewable Energy Agency.
DNV. (2023b). Foresight report on future MTF Framework for Assessing Decarboni- Study on the Use of LNG as Marine Fuel.
tions in Singapore. Journal of Hazardous
availability of green/blue ammonia in 2030, Paris: IEA. IRENA and AEA. (2022). Innovation Outlook: zation Technologies and Alternative Energy
Materials, Volume 452, 2023, 131281,ISSN Tsvetkova, A. H. (2022). Creating value
2040 and 2050. Renewable Ammonia. Abu Dhabi, Brooklyn: Carriers. The Maritime Technologies Forum
0304-3894, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. IEA. (2020). CCUS in Clean Energy Transi- through autonomous shipping: an
International Renewable Energy Agency, (MTF) November 2022.
jhazmat.2023.131281 DNV. (2020). Maritime forecast to 2050 - tions. Paris: IEA. ecosystem perspective. Maritime Economics
Ammonia Energy Association.
Energy Transition Outlook 2020, download MTF. (2023). Operational Management to & Logistics, 255-277. doi:https://doi.
DNV. (2021a). Maritime Forecast to 2050 – IEA. (2022a). Hydrogen Projects Database.
at eto.dnv.com IRENA AND METHANOL INSTITUTE. (2021). Accelerate Safe Maritime Decarbonisation. org/10.1057/s41278-022-00216-y
Energy Transition Outlook 2021, download Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/data- Innovation Outlook : Renewable Methanol,
Eide, M., Chryssakis, C., & Endresen, Ø. Maritime Technologies Forum (MTF) April Wappler, M., Unguder, D., Lu, X., Ohlmeyer,
at eto.dnv.com and-statistics/data-product/hydrogen-pro- International Renewable Energy Agency.
(2013). CO2 abatement potential towards 2023. H., Teschke, H., & Lueke, W. (2022). Building
DNV. (2021b). Ammonia Bunkering of jects-database, License: CC BY 4.0 Abu Dhabi.
2050 for shipping, including alternative Ricardo. (2022a). Sustainable criteria and life the green hydrogen market – Current state
Passenger Vessel - Concept Quanti- fuels. Carbon Management, 4(3), 275-289. IEA. (2022b). Biofuels, IEA, Paris. Retrieved Lindstad, E., Lagemann, B., Rialland, A., and outlook on green hydrogen demand
cycle GHG emission assessment methods
tative Risk Assessment. Green Shipping from https://www.iea.org/reports/biofuels, Gamlem, G., & Valland, A. (2021, 12). and electrolyzer manufacturing. Interna-
Elkafas, A. G., Rivarolo, M., Gadduci, E., and standards for alternative marine fuels.
Programme. DNV report no. 2021-0205, License: CC BY 4.0 Reduction of maritime GHG emissions and tional Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume
Magistri, L., & Massardo, A. (2023). Fuel Cell Report for the IMO Low Carbon Global
Rev.0. the potential role of E-fuels. Pergamon. 47, Issue 79, 2022, Pages 33551-33570.
Systems for Maritime: A Review of Research IEA. (2022c). Nuclear Power and Secure Indstry Alliance.
DNV. (2022a). Maritime Forecast to 2050 – Development, Commercial Products, Energy Transitions. Retrieved from LLI, DNV. (2023). Maritime Safety Trends Ziajka-Poznańska, E. M. (2021). Costs and
Ricardo. (2022b). Technological, Operational
Energy Transition Outlook 2022, download Applications, and Perspectives. Processes. www.iea.org 2012-2022: Advancing a culture of safety in Benefits of Autonomous Shipping — A
and Energy Pathways for Maritime Transport
at eto.dnv.com doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11010097 a changing industry landscape. DNV and Literature Review. Applied Science, 11.
IEA Bioenergy. (2019b). Plant lists – Lloyds List Intelligence. to Reduce Emissions Towards 2050. OGCI/
European Union. (2023). Sustainable doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104553
DNV. (2022b). Energy Transition Outlook. Upgrading Plant List 2019. Retrieved from Concawe.
DNV. maritime fuels (FuelEU Maritime Initiative). Lovering, J. R., Yip, A., & Nordhaus, T.
https://www.ieabioenergy.com/blog/publi- Ricardo; DNV. (2023). Study on the readiness
Retrieved from https://oeil.secure.europarl. (2016). Historical construction costs of
DNV. (2022c). State of play - status on regu- cations/new-iea-bioenergy-task-37-updat- and availability of low- and zero-carbon ship
europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure. global nuclear power reactors. Energy
latory development for zero-carbon fuels. ed-list-of-biogas-upgrading-plants/ technology and marine fuels.
do?reference=2021/0210(COD)&l=en Policy. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
DNV report no. 2022-1161, Nordic Roadmap IEA Bioenergy. (2022). Facilities, Global enpol.2016.01.011
Georgopoulou, C., Koukoulopoulos, L., S. Dharmavaram, M. J. (2023). Red Squirrel
publication no.1-B/1/2022. database of biomass conversion facilities,
Dimopoulos, G., Ovrum, E., Nikolopoulos, Maritime Nuclear Application Group. (2022). Tests: Air Products’ ammonia field experi-
DNV. (2022d). Insights into Seafarer Training L., & Bougiouris, K. (2021). Model-Based including advanced biofuels, combustion, Introduction to Advanced Commercial ments. S. Dharmavaram, M. J. Carroll, E. M.
and Skills Needed to Support a Decar- Assessment of a Fuel Cell Driven Very Large gasification and pyrolysis plants. Retrieved Nuclear for Maritime. National Reactor Lutostansky, D. McCormack, A. Chester, D.
bonized Shipping Industry. DNV Report no. Crude Carrier Concept. Tullamore: HIPER from https://www.ieabioenergy.com/instal- Innovation Center at Idaho National Allason. https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.
2022-0814, rev.0. 2021. lations Laboratory. Retrieved from https://nric.inl. com/doi/full/10.1002/prs.12454

70
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

ENDNOTES Click on an endnote number to navigate to the related page

1 Fuels that have no net GHG emissions, ref. 14 https://research-and-innovation.ec.eu- 26 CN GOV source doc: https://xxgk.mot. 36 www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ depending on the primary energy source 53 See (Elkafas, Rivarolo, Gadduci, Magistri,
IPCC definition of carbon neutral (https:// ropa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/ gov.cn/2020/jigou/zhghs/202201/ Infohub/Markets/guarantee-of-origin and production pathway. A dual-fuelled & Massardo, 2023) for a review of fuel
www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary) funding-programmes-and-open-calls/ t20220121_3637584.html ship will have the capability of running on cells in marine applications.
37 www.h2cn.org.cn/en/about.htm
2 Resolution MEPC.377(80): The 2023 IMO horizon-europe_en an alternative fuel, but both the conven-
27 CN GOV source doc: https://xxgk.mot. 38 https://www.certifhy.eu 54 ShipFC - Green Ammonia Energy System,
Strategy for the reduction of greenhouse tional fuel and alternative fuel can be
15 https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/ gov.cn/2020/jigou/zhghs/202204/ see https://maritimecleantech.no/project/
gas emissions from ships. 39 https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resourc- derived from fossil sources or be car-
funding-climate-action/innovation-fund_en t20220407_3649837.html shipfc-green-ammonia-energy-system
es/files/Net-Zero-Standard.pdf bon-neutral.
3 MEPC.1/Circ.905: Interim guidance on the 28 CN GOV news: http://www.npc.gov.cn/ 55 https://www.shell.com/business-custom-
16 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-con-
use of biofuels under Regulations 26, 27, 40 https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/ 47 The statistics are taken from DNV‘s
tent/uploads/2021/10/US-Long-Term- npc/c30834/202212/c3b120f75f464ec- ers/marine/news-and-media-releases/
and 28 of MARPOL Annex VI (DCS and CII) customers-willingness-to-pay-to-decar- Alternative Fuels Insight platform,
Strategy.pdf cac0bd07b57262e84.shtml. EN news: news-and-media-2022/shell-led-consorti-
bonize-shipping and https://www. launched in 2018 as the industry go-to
4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ https://global.chinadaily.com. um-to-explore-solid-oxide-fuel-cell-tech-
17 https://www.energy.gov/sites/ mckinsey.com/industries/travel-logis- source for information on uptake of
EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R1119 cn/a/202212/30/WS63ae- nology-use-in-shipping-sector.html
default/files/2023-01/the-us-national- tics-and-infrastructure/our-insights/ alternative fuels and technologies in
3c97a31057c47eba6f2d.html
5 https://commission.europa.eu/strate- driving-decarbonization-accelerating-ze- shipping, and on bunkering infrastructure 56 https://www.msccruises.com/en-gl/
blueprint-for-transportation-
gy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/ 29 CN GOV source doc: https://www.msa. ro-emission-freight-transport for alternative fuels. About-MSC/News/MSC-World-Eu-
decarbonization.pdf
european-green-deal/delivering-europe- gov.cn/page/article.do?articleId=- 41 See, for example, https://www.maersk. ropa-sustainability-technology.aspx
an-green-deal_en 18 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/ E40C898D-11DD-41E4-8D97- 48 https://maritime-executive.com/article/
com/transportation-services/eco-delivery, 57 https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/
california-approves-updated-berth- 72062C28D65B, EN news: https://www. gothenburg-sweden-to-form-green-corri-
6 Revision of the EU ETS: https://oeil. https://2020-annual-report.kuehne-nagel. ship-operations/msc-cruises-explora-jour-
regulation-expanding-efforts-cut- standard-club.com/knowledge-news/ dors-to-rotterdam-and-ghent
secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ com/sustainability/fostering-sustainabili- neys-scouting-new-technologies-nucle-
ficheprocedure.do?refer- pollution-ships-california china-msa-regulation-on-ship-energy- ty-in-the-industry/driving-our-net-zero- 49 The SUISO FRONTIER commences its
ar-among-them
ence=2021/0211A(COD)&l=en consumption-data-and-carbon-intensity- carbon-programme/driving-our-net-zero- maiden voyage to Australia, marking the
19 https://www.state.gov/launching-the-
management-measures-effective-from- carbon-programme and https://www. start of the World's First Demonstration of 58 https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/
7 Nitrous oxide (N2O) is different from first-movers-coalition-at-the-2021-un-
22-dec-2022-valid-for-5-years-4829 msc.com/en/sustainability/enabling-logis- International Transportation of Large pdf-report-congress-status-solid-oxide-fu-
nitrogen oxides, or NOX, which refers to climate-change-conference
tics-decarbonisation/journey-to-net-zero Volume Liquefied Hydrogen, https:// el-cell-program
NO (nitrogen monoxide) and NO2 30 CN GOV source doc: https://sthj.sh.gov.
20 https://greenshippingchallenge.org www.hystra.or.jp/en/gallery/article.
(nitrogen dioxide). cn/hbzhywpt2025/20220209/6a80a- 42 https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina- 59 https://www.norled.no/en/news/the-mf-
21 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ 9d46ec94195bc36d1bb53fc1702.html ble-business/2015/jan/09/carbon-offset- html#news06 hydra-first-in-the-world
8 https://commission.europa.eu/system/
text/42/17013 ting-insetting-supply-chain 50 https://www.motorship.com/ships-and-
files/2021-07/revision-eu-ets_with-an- 31 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ 60 https://www.bairdmaritime.com/work-
nex_en_0.pdf 22 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp- EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX- 43 Chain of custody is an auditing process yards/first-lh2-fuelled-hydrogen-fuel-cell- boat-world/passenger-vessel-world/
content/uploads/2022/12/Inflation- :02018L2001-20220607 and https://oeil. that traces and verifies raw materials, such ferry-enters-service/1482448.article ro-pax/vessel-review-hydra-norled-takes-
9 Sustainable maritime fuels (FuelEU
Reduction-Act-Guidebook.pdf secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ as biomass, throughout a supply chain to 51 The Maritime Technologies Forum (MTF) delivery-of-ferry-designed-to-run-on-liq-
Maritime Initiative): https://oeil.secure.
ficheprocedure.do?refer- assure the sustainability credential of the uid-hydrogen
europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/fiche- 23 https://www.transportation.gov/ is a group of flag States and classification
ence=2021/0218(COD)&l=en end product.
procedure.do?refer- societies which aims to bridge the gap 61 https://www.offshore-energy.biz/ko-
briefing-room/biden-harris-
ence=2021/0210(COD)&l=en 32 https://energy.ec.europa.eu/publications/ 44 https://rsb.org/book-claim between technological progress and rea-shipbuilding-gets-aip-for-lique-
administration-announces-more-703-
delegated-regulation-minimum-thresh- 45 https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/ regulatory process (https://www.maritim- fied-hydrogen-carrier-design
10 TEN-T: Trans-European Transport Network million-improve-port-infrastructure
old-ghg-savings-recycled-carbon-fuels- files/Market-based%20accounting%20 etechnologiesforum.com).
11 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa. 24 https://www.maritime.dot.gov/ 62 https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/
and-annex_en Survey%20Memo.pdf 52 https://www.manifoldtimes.com/news/
eu/publications/net-zero-industry-act_en PIDPgrants energy-systems-integration/hydrogen_en
33 Resolution MEPC.376(80): Guidelines on 46 Alternative fuels mean any fuel type cma-cgm-and-sipg-complete-chinas-first-
12 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa. 25 EN GOV source doc.: https://english. 63 https://www.marubeni.com/en/
Life Cycle GHG Intensity of Marine Fuels. beyond conventional fossil fuel oils and lng-simops-bunkering-op
eu/publications/net-zero-industry-act_en news/2022/release/00030.html
www.gov.cn/policies/latestreleas- gas oils, such as LNG, LPG, methanol, https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/asia/
34 https://www.iscc-system.org
13 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa. es/202110/27/content_WS6178a47e- ammonia, hydrogen. Alternative fuels first-ship-ship-lng-bunkering-opera- 64 https://www.abc-engines.com/en/news/
eu/publications/net-zero-industry-act_en c6d0df57f98e3dfb.html 35 https://rsb.org may or may not be carbon-neutral tion-zeebrugge-port launch-behydro-si-hydrogen-engine

71
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

Click on an endnote number to navigate to the related page

65 See, for example, the range of price 77 https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/ https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa. 99 After 2050 our price scenarios have fixed 107 The concept of scaling via diffusion can
estimates in (DNV, 2022a) figure A.2. arctic/2023/01/nuclear-icebreakers- eu/welcome-jec-website/reference- prices, giving constant annual costs help explain the global proliferation of
operation-hits-post-soviet-peak regulatory-framework/renewable-energy- between 2050 and 2060. LNG-powered vessels: It started with
66 For discussion on the topic, see, for
example, https://theicct.org/wp-content/ 78 https://ulstein.com/news/ulstein-thor- recast-2030-red-ii_en 100 Based on discussion with industry actors, initial routes or ports by building on the
uploads/2021/06/Zero-emission-contain- zero-emission-concept studies on onboard carbon capture, national interests of one country, expand-
89 Methanol Institute (2023), Ports with ing into developments in a wider region,
er-corridor-hydrogen-3.5.2020.pdf and calculations from unit prices, and https://
79 https://www.seaborg.com Available Methanol Storage Capacity, followed by other regions, before finally
https://futurefuelsnordic.com/ais-analysis- splash247.com/the-costs-of-installing-car-
80 https://corepower.energy/, https://www. website visited, February 2023. https:// bon-capture-systems-onboard-revealed scaling to a global arena with interconti-
of-the-nordic-ship-traffic-and-energy-use
offshore-energy.biz/core-power- www.methanol.org/marine nental routes.
67 The DNV WAPS ST-0511 standard pro- 101 Liquid CO2 has a density of about 1.1
breaches-funding-milestone-of-100- 90 Green Gas Certification Scheme, https://
vides a framework for the verification and tonnes per cubic metre, https://en.wikipe- 108 https://www.mpa.gov.sg/media-centre/
million
certification of wind-assisted propulsion www.greengas.org.uk/ dia.org/wiki/Liquid_carbon_dioxide details/maritime-and-port-authority-of-
systems. The ST-0511 technical standard 81 https://www.ornl.gov/molten-salt-reactor/ singapore-and-port-of-rotterdam-to-es-
91 Suiso Frontier brings world’s 1st LH2 102 Overnight construction costs of nuclear
is a complement to the DNV WAPS class history tablish-world-s-longest-green-and-digi-
shipment to Japan - Offshore Energy reactors in USD2010, i.e. financial costs
notation, which is focused on the integra- 82 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_ tal-corridor-for-efficient-and-sustaina-
(offshore-energy.biz) not included, https://en.wikipedia.org/
tion of systems on vessels, whether mass wiki/Overnight_cost ble-shipping
retrofitted or as part of a newbuilding. 92 Egil Ulvan Rederi new project
83 https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/ 103 Typical costs for decommissioning fund 109 The Green Shipping Programme (GSP) in
68 According to Clarksons World Fleet “With Orca” a hydrogen fuelled bulk Norway. Read more about the GSP and
energy-systems/evinci-microreactor and fuel are USD 10 per megawatt hour
Register. carrier project awarded LR Approval relevant pilot projects at https://green-
(MWh) of electric energy produced. The
84 https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/ in Principle. – Egil Ulvan Rederi AS
69 Wind-powered cargo capacity surpasses case-study reactor produces 132,000 shippingprogramme.com
sustainability-green-technology/nuclear- (ulvan-rederi.no)
1 men dwt milestone - Offshore Energy MWh annually. https://www.oecd-nea.org/ 110 The Nordic Roadmap for the introduction
retrofits-technically-feasible-
(offshore-energy.biz) 93 World’s First Barge Bunkering with jcms/pl_30490/full-cost-workshop-4-defin- of sustainable zero-carbon fuels. An
economically-impractical
ing-plant-level-costs outline of the project, including technical,
70 For example, Green Seas: How Vale’s Methanol Demonstrates Potential
85 Tonne of oil equivalent (toe) is a unit of
methanol-fuelled bulker giants could (maritime-executive.com) 104 Policy Paper COP 26: Clydebank Declara- strategic, and collaborative activities, and
energy, defined as the amount of energy
slash emissions by 90% | TradeWinds tion for green shipping corridors, signed partners, may be seen at https://futurefu-
released by burning one tonne (1000 94 World-unique methanol bunkering
(tradewindsnews.com) by 22 countries, https://www.gov.uk/ elsnordic.com
kilograms) of crude oil. Used to compare carried out in the Port of Gothenburg government/publications/cop-26-clyde-
71 World's first wind-powered Roero vessel amount of fuel alternatives with different 111 Oxford Smith School of Enterprise and
95 See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate bank-declaration-for-green-shipping-corri-
secures EUR 9M in EU funding, Wallenius energy content and often used with the Environment (June 2021). Zero-Emis-
dors/cop-26-clydebank-declara-
Wilhelmsen news release 15 January mega prefix (Mtoe) Change (IPCC) definition of carbon- sions Shipping: Contracts-for difference
tion-for-green-shipping-corridors
2023, www.walleniuswilhelmsen.com neutral at https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ as incentives for the decarbonization of
86 https://www.reuters.com/business/
chapter/glossary 105 Green Corridors: Definitions and Ap- international shipping, https://www.inet.
72 https://seatrans.no/wp-content/ energy/singapore-2022-bunker-fuel-
proaches. A Discussion paper from the ox.ac.uk/publications/zero-emis-
uploads/2022/03/Seatrans-Sustainability- sales-dip-43-yy-479-mln- 96 On methane emissions, see, for example, Global Maritime Forum (2022), https:// sions-shipping-contracts-for-difference-
report-2021.pdf tonnes-2023-01-13 https://mamii.org/, https:// www.globalmaritimeforum.org/con- as-incentives-forthe-decarbonisation-
73 Clarksons Research 87 We have used different sources, for methaneguidingprinciples.org tent/2022/08/Discussion-paper_ of-international-shipping/
example, (IEA, 2022a), (IEA, 2022b), (IEA Green-Corridors-Definitions-and-Ap-
74 https://solvangship.no/2021/10/19/ 97 FuelSelector is a combination of technical 112 Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero
Bioenergy, 2022), (IEA Bioenergy, 2019b), proaches.pdf
solvang-signs-deal-to-decarbonise-fleet-2 assessment and economic modelling Carbon Shipping (August 2022). Green
(IRENA AND METHANOL INSTITUTE,
using the FuelPath model, see Chapters 5 106 Carbon-neutral fuels are fuels that have no
75 https://everlongccus.eu/about-the- 2021). Corridors: Feasibility phase blueprint.
and 6. net GHG emissions; see Intergovernmen-
project 113 Nordic Roadmap – Knowledge Hub,
88 European Commission. (2018). tal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
76 https://safety4sea.com/uk-sets-target-to- Renewable Energy – Recast to 2030 (RED 98 Assuming that 80% of transit speed is definition of carbon-neutral at https:// https://futurefuelsnordic.com/
pass-maritime-law-for-nuclear-ships II). Retrieved from EU Science Hub: below 19 knots. www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary green-shipping-corridors

72
CONTENTS FOREWORD EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION DRIVERS AND SHIP TECHNOLOGIES FUEL PRODUCTION LIFECYCLE PERSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF CCS AND GREEN SHIPPING DNV Maritime Forecast to 2050
SUMMARY REGULATIONS AND FUELS AND DEMAND ON SHIPPING EMISSIONS NUCLEAR PROPULSION CORRIDORS

THE PROJECT TEAM

Core contributors from DNV Published by DNV AS.

Steering committee: Remi Eriksen, Ditlev Engel, Design: printprojekt, Hamburg.

Ulrike Haugen, Trond Hodne, Liv Hovem Images: AdobeStock: 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 24,
38, 56, 64, 66, 68 | ASKO MARITIME: 7, 61 | Egil Ulvan
Lead authors: Erik Ovrum, Tore Longva, Rederi: 7, 61 | DNV/Eric Solafoto: 2 | Grieg Group: 7, 61 |
Marius Leisner, Christoffer Bøhmer, Anne Sophie Hasenpusch Photo-Productions: 48, 49, 50 | Hendrik W.
Sagbakken Ness, Ola Gundersen Skåre, Øyvind Brinks: 37 | IMO (CC BY 2.0): 12 | Jens Bludau, CC BY-SA
Endresen, Magnus S. Eide 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons: 36 | Northern Lights: 53 |
Oceanbird: 22 | Sea Cargo: 32 | Shell Plc: 31 |
Contributing authors: Simen Loe Heggen, Øyvind Shutterstock: 3, 4, 5, 9, 13, 14 (2), 16, 17 (2), 19, 21, 27,
Sekkesæter, Kristian Hammer, Linda S. Hammer, 29, 33, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 51, 52, 55, 58, 60, 69, 72 |
Dorthe Alida Arntzen Slotvik, Jeannette Schäfer, Suzie Webb: 26, 28, 43 | Wärtsilä/Solvang Shipping: 35 |
Hendrik Brinks, Per Einar Henriksen Don’t miss our upcoming
Wessel Blokzijl, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia
reports:
Commons: 34
Reviewers: Jan Kvålsvold, Håkon Hustad, Energy Transition Outlook
Eirik Nyhus, Terje Sverud North America
on 25 September 2023

Energy Transition Outlook

(main report)
on 11 October 2023

For the Maritime Forecast 2050:

dnv.com/maritime-forecast

Subscribe to the latest Energy Transition insights from DNV:

dnv.com/energy-transition/subscribe.html

73
About DNV

DNV is an independent assurance and risk management provider,

operating in more than 100 countries. Through its broad experience and Headquarters:
deep expertise DNV advances safety and sustainable performance, sets DNV AS
industry standards, and inspires and invents solutions. NO-1322 Høvik, Norway
Tel: +47 67 57 99 00
DNV is the world’s leading classification society and a recognized advisor www.dnv.com
for the maritime industry. We enhance safety, quality, energy efficiency
and environmental performance of the global shipping industry – across
all vessel types and offshore structures. We invest heavily in research and
development to find solutions, together with the industry, that address
strategic, operational or regulatory challenges.

The trademarks DNV® and Det

Norske Veritas® are the properties of
companies in the Det Norske Veritas
dnv.com group. All rights reserved.