Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Strategy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/esr

Ammonia as a potential marine fuel: A review

K. Machaj a, b, c, J. Kupecki a, b, d, *, Z. Malecha c, A.W. Morawski e, M. Skrzypkiewicz a, b,
M. Stanclik c, M. Chorowski c
a
Institute of Power Engineering, Mory 8, 01-330, Warsaw, Poland
b
Center for Hydrogen Technologies (CTH2), Institute of Power Engineering, Augustowka 36, 02-981, Warsaw, Poland
c
Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Department of Cryogenics and Aerospace Engineering, Wybrzeże Wyspiańskiego 27, 50-370, Wrocław, Poland
d
National Fuel Cell Resaerch Center (NFCRC), University of California, Irvine, Engineering Laboratory Facility, Irvine, CA, 92697-3550, USA
e
West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin, Faculty of Chemical Technology and Engineering, Department of Inorganic Chemical Technology and
Environment Engineering, Pulaskiego 10, 70-322, Szczecin, Poland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The rising share of renewable energy sources (RES) in the energy mix and the desire to reduce the emission of
SOFC greenhouse gases and harmful substances have driven broad-based technological advances on a global scale. In
Maritime sector recent years, Millennium and Sustainable Development Goals have appeared, seeking to improve and level up
Ammonia
standards of living while protecting the environment. Coupled with this, regulations are regularly issued that set
Power-to-ammonia
Emission reduction
increasingly stringent limits on emissions. This review examines the opportunities and challenges facing the
Alternative fuels maritime sector in light of the game-changing goals set by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). First,
the review gives a short introduction to RES and considers the feasibility of producing green hydrogen and using
ammonia as a carrier. It goes on to discuss the use of ammonia as a marine fuel from a technological, scientific,
economic, and legal regulations point of view. The impact of emission regulations on the maritime sector and the
challenges of bringing ammonia on board ships are factored in. Finally, the paper presents a technical justifi­
cation for using solid oxide fuel cells to boost the efficiency of energy conversion.

produced gases. Ammonia is being talked about as a fuel of the future

1. Introduction
Concerns about climate change are driving radical changes in in­
dustrial behavior. Since the 1970s, numerous policy documents have
been issued by the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International
Maritime Organization (IMO), and many other organizations aimed at
reducing the negative impact of humans on ecosystems. The IPCC report
of 2019 stated that the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) in the next 30
years could increase significantly. This was estimated based on the
Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP), which sets out different
radiative forcing values in the year 2100 depending on the concentra­
tion of GHG in the atmosphere. By 2050 GMSL will increase by
approximately 24 cm for the RCP2.6 (2.6 W m− 2) scenario and by
approximately 32 cm for RCP8.5 (8.5 W m− 2) [1]. Changes affect in­
dustries such as power production and transportation. In the energy
sector, there is a noticeable increase in the use of renewable energy
sources (RES) [2] and the inherent production of synthetic gases.
Maritime transport is looking to switch to alternative, synthetically
[3]. The maritime and ammonia synthesis industry together are
responsible for approx. 5% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions
(ammonia industry roughly up to 2% [4,5], maritime industry roughly
3% [6]). Electricity from RES could be coupled with ammonia produc­
tion as part of highly efficient and low-emission fuel conversion systems.
Solid oxide cells have a key role to play in the production of synthetic
hydrogen – which is needed to synthesize ammonia – and supply elec­
tricity on board ships. This review discusses recent developments and
the current state of technological advancement in these technologies. It
broaches scientific, industrial, legal regulations, and economic issues. It
draws attention to the direction of scientific research and refers to
possible research areas that could accelerate the implementation of
ammonia in the maritime sector. This approach takes a critical look at
the use of ammonia as a fuel in solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) in an in­
dustry that is thinking ahead. As mankind ships at least 11 billion tons of
goods around the world every year, switching to a well-known chemical
produced globally from RES bears the hallmark of an eminently sus­
tainable marine fuel solution.
In the last 5 years, many review documents and theoretical analyzes

* Corresponding author. Center for Hydrogen Technologies (CTH2), Institute of Power Engineering, Augustowka 36, 02-981, Warsaw, Poland.
E-mail address: jakub.kupecki@ien.com.pl (J. Kupecki).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2022.100926
Received 6 March 2022; Received in revised form 8 July 2022; Accepted 4 August 2022
Available online 5 September 2022
2211-467X/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
K. Machaj et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926

Nomenclature PEM proton exchange membrane

PV photovoltaic
AEC alkaline electrolysis RES renewable energy sources of energy
CO2 carbon dioxide RCP representative concentration pathway
CAPEX capital expenditure RSOC reversible solid oxide cells
CHF critical heat flux SOFC solid oxide fuel cell
DNV Det Norske Veritas SOFC–H solid oxide fuel cell with hydrogen ion-conductive
EU European Union electrolyte
FCH JU Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking SOFC–O solid oxide fuel cell with oxygen ion-conductive electrolyte
GHG greenhouse gases SOE solid oxide electrolysis
GMSL global mean sea level SOX sulfur oxides
H2 hydrogen UN United Nations
IEA International Energy Agency YSZ yttria-stabilized zirconia
IMO International Maritime Organization WWEA World Wind Energy Association
IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency cvap heat of vapor, kJ kg− 1
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cwg specific heat capacity of gas fraction, kJ kg− 1 K− 1
JTF Just Transition Fund cwl specific heat capacity of liquid fraction, kJ kg− 1 K− 1
LNG liquefied natural gas f maximum filling coefficient
LPG liquefied petroleum gas ΔH enthalpy difference, kJ kg − 1
LHV low heating value Q total energy losses, W
MARPOL 73/78 International Convention for the Prevention of p pressure, bar
Pollution from Ships 1973 as modified by the Protocol of pabs working pressure, bar
1978 pv_abs valve opening pressure, bar
MEPC Maritime Environment Protection Committee T storage temperature, ◦ C
NFPA 704 United States-based National Fire Protection Association Tboil(Tin) boiling temperature, ◦ C
Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Tout outlet temperature, ◦ C
Materials for Emergency Response t holding time, days
NOx nitrogen oxides V volume, m3
NH3 ammonia ρl density of liquid, kg m− 3
OPEX operating expenditure ρn density at normal conditions, kg m− 3
P2G power-to-gas

have been produced on the use of ammonia in the energy industry,
especially in powering ships. Among others, McFarlane et al. [7] per­
formed a roadmap to the ammonia economy. In the study, the topic of
the maritime industry and fuel cells (solid oxide and direct ammonia fuel
cells) topics were mentioned breathily. The authors focused on the
ammonia production and usage of ammonia produced in various tech­
nology generations. The authors suggested that the 3rd generation
which no longer uses the Haber-Bosh process but is based on the elec­
troreduction of NH3 will be most interesting for the maritime industry as
a fuel. A similar study was published in 2021 by Hasan et al. [8] with a
bit bigger database. In 2018 Siddiqui and Dincer [9] compiled a study on
direct ammonia solid oxide fuel cells in one article. The authors focused
on the comparison between the performance of SOFC–O and SOFC–H
manufactured with different electrolytes and electrodes. A similar study
was performed by Rathore et al. [10] in 2021. Additionally, in their
work, the authors collected information on the models that enable direct
ammonia solid oxide fuel cells analysis. In articles [11–13] the authors
described technical challenges, environmental assessments, or regula­
tions for future fuels e.g., LNG and ammonia which are going to be used
in the maritime industry. Compared to the above work, our review
comprehensively covers the life cycle of green ammonia produced and
utilized in solid oxide cells. Starting from the geopolitics of production
and the usage of ammonia, the current possibilities of the maritime in­
dustry in the transport of ammonia are presented. The review focuses
also on specific technological solutions enabling the use of ammonia.
Based on the literature, the efficiency and energy consumption of the
processes were determined. What allows for the estimation of the profits
resulting from the improvement of appropriate processes in the
ammonia life chain.
2. Emission control and changes in the power industry
2.1. Emission and environmental protection regulations
Numerous far-reaching rules and regulations have been introduced
at the national, regional, and global levels to reduce environmental
pollution and emissions of hazardous substances and promote sustain­
able development.
The first landmark document was the Kyoto Protocol, signed at the
United Nations Climate Change Conference in 1997. The ratifying
countries undertook to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrogen oxide, alkyl halides, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride
by 5% by 2012 based on 1990 levels [14]. The protocol was signed by
192 countries.
The Paris Agreement as a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol was
signed during the 21st United Nations Conference on Climate Change. It
aimed to keep the increase in average temperature below 2 ◦ C and to try
to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 ◦ C, among others by reducing
emissions of GHG [15]. The countries that ratified the Agreement un­
dertook to present their plans every five years, as well as to report to
other parties and the public on how they are being implemented.
Importantly, more developed countries also agreed to co-finance ini­
tiatives by developing countries in pursuit of these goals [15]. As of June
2021, the Agreement was ratified by 191 countries and signed but not
ratified by six other countries.
The European Union’s Green Deal initiative seeks to reduce its total
GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels and to
become climate neutral by 2050 [16,17]. The regions most affected will
be financially supported by the Just Transition Fund (JTF) [18,19]. It is
also estimated that changes caused by the Green Deal, such as cleaner
air, may lead to significant improvements in human health in the EU

2
K. Machaj et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926

[17]. Table 1
The United Nations Earth Summits for environmental protection and Gas emission regulations for the maritime sector are based on the revised MEPC
sustainable development were held in 1992, 2002, and 2012 [20]. In MARPOL VI annex [32,33], IMO GHG Study [38], and European Union Sulfur
addition, the United Nations has been organizing climate conferences Content of Marine Fuels [40].
since 1995. The result of these activities was the adoption of the Mil­ NOX emission Value, g kWh− 1
Revolutions
lennium Development Goals in 2000 and the 2030 Sustainable Devel­ (n), rpm
opment Goals in 2017. One of the goals (Goal 14) concerns also the Ships constructed after 1 January 17.0 <130
protection of coastal and marine areas by 2020 and a significant 2000 and before 1 January 2011 45.0 n− 0.2 130–1999
reduction of all types of marine pollution by 2025 [21]. The UN con­ 9.8 ≥2000
Ships constructed after 1 January 14.4
ference in 2017 was titled “Our Ocean, Our Future” and its main purpose
<130
2011 44.0 n− 0.2 130–1999
was to draw attention to the problems raised in the 14th Sustainable 7.7 ≥2000
Development Goal [22]. The following decisions were taken at the UN Only valid in ECA zones (for ships 3.4 <130
climate change conference in Glasgow (2021): (i) departure from fossil produced since 1 January 2016 9.0 n− 0.2 130–1999
and 2021 depends on ECA). 2.0
fuels - 34 countries and five public financial institutions will stop sup­ ≥2000

porting the fossil fuel energy sector, with over $20 billion committed to SOX emission – estimated by Value, % Comment
transitioning developing countries away from coal; (ii) reduction of sulfur content in the fuel –
general regulations
methane emissions - 30% by 2030 (iii); electromobility - from 2035,
100% zero-emission cars will be produced by 7 major car companies; 4.5% Before 1 July
2010
(iv) maritime - first green shipping corridors for decarbonization [23].
3.5% After 1 July
IPCC reports also influence the direction of technological develop­ 2010
ment in transport and energy production as regards environmental is­ 0.5% After 1 January
sues. To date, five reports and parts of the sixth report have been 2015 -
published. The first report (1990) dealt with the probable rise in sea SOX emission – estimated by Value, % Comment
levels [24], the second (1995) the danger posed by CO2 emissions [25], sulfur content in the fuel –
the third (2001) regarding the anthropogenic impact on climate change Emission Control Areas
[26], the fourth (2007) frequency of extreme weather events and 1.5 Before 1
possible abandonment of fossil fuels, electrification of the transport in­ January 2012
dustry, and recovery of heat and methane [27], the fifth (2014) RCP 1.0 After 1 January
2012
scenarios concerning the energy balance in the atmosphere and the 0.1 After 1 January
average temperature on the Earth. The fifth report concluded that unless 2020
there are rapid and significant changes in the economy, it will be
CO2 emissions reduction The reduction Comment
impossible to stop climate change in the future, even if CO2 emissions (including all maritime compared to the base
are drastically reduced. The future climate would be determined by GHG transport) year of 2008, %
already accumulated in the atmosphere [28]. The IPCC has also issued 40 Until 2030
several special reports, the last one related to oceans and the cryosphere 70 Until 2050
[29].
There has been a steady increase in focus on addressing environ­
mental pollution at sea over the last 50 years. The 1967 Torrey Canyon zones respectively.
oil tanker disaster resulted in the death of more than 25,000 marine Fig. 1 shows the timeline of the above documents and activities. The
organisms [30]. The MT Amoco Cadiz disaster in 1977 released 220,000 increasing intensity of regulatory efforts in the last ten years is striking.
tons of crude oil into the ocean. The aftermath of these events was the
MARPOL 73/78 convention [31], which has been successively updated 2.2. Renewable sources of energy development
since the 1970s.
There have been six annexes to MARPOL, the last in 2005. Moreover, RES installed capacity has grown around 2.3 times between 2010
it was revised several times by the IMO Maritime Environment Protec­ and 2020 [2]. The report of the International Renewable Energy Agency
tion Committee (MEPC) [32,33]. MARPOL 73/78 concerns: protection (IRENA) [2] shows that in 2020 the total world energy capacity installed
against petroleum and harmful substances other than petroleum de­ in RES was 2799 GW up 4% from the 2019 value of 2537 GW [41].
rivatives, wastewater treatment, and disposal, removal of solid waste Almost half of RES are located in Asia and around 25% in Europe [2]. As
from ships, and reduction of air pollution [21,22]. The emission limits can be seen in Fig. 2a, in 2020 around 52% of RES energy was produced
for CO2, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sulfur oxides (SOX) were introduced from intermittent wind and solar power plants [2]. 90% of the increase
in 2005, and later documents and updates are presented in Table 1. in renewables between 2019 and 2020 is due to wind and solar power
Furthermore, the document introduced the special Emission Control plants. The IRENA report shows that since 2013 the installed capacity of
Areas (ECA) [35]. The ECA includes the Baltic Sea, North Sea, US and solar energy and wind energy has been increasing yearly by 20% and
Canadian coasts, US territories in the Caribbean, Virgin Islands, Puerto 10% respectively. The World Wind Energy Association (WWEA) report
Rico, and Hawaiian Islands coasts. Emission regulations are systemati­ confirmed information about wind power plants and stated that in 2020
cally updated, for example, the permissible sulfur content in fuel has their capacity was about 744 GW [42], of which around 95% were
been changed six times in the last 15 years [35–37]. installed onshore and only 5% offshore [4]. There is a visible difference
The current emission regulations were introduced in view of the between the reports – in the order of 15 GW – but it is low enough to fall
Millennium and Sustainable Development Goals and after the publica­ within the boundaries of acceptability. Analysis based on the IRENA and
tion of the third IMO GHG Study (2014) [38]. They aimed to reduce WWEA reports and shown in bar chart format in Fig. 2b reveals that the
annual GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 levels growth rate of solar energy sources in recent years has outstripped that
[38]. Furthermore, the IMO aims to reduce CO2 emissions by at least of wind energy.
70% by 2050 as compared to 2008 [39]. The installed capacity of existing wind power plants is still higher
The third IMO GHG Study was followed up by the EU regulation of than that of solar energy sources. Fig. 2b presents the growth rates in
2015 regarding the sulfur content of marine fuels [40]. The document installed capacity for wind and solar in the period 2012 through 2020. It
set sulfur limits in marine fuel as 0.5% and 0.1% in the EU and ECA in EU can be seen that there has been greater progress in solar power, which

3
K. Machaj et al.
Fig. 1. A timetable of selected documents and activities relating to environmental protection in the last 50 years.
includes photovoltaics (PV) and solar thermal power systems. According
to the 2020 IRENA report [2], 99% of solar energy is installed as PV and
the rest as thermal power systems. Statistics compiled by the Interna­
tional Energy Agency (IEA) predict that in 2021 and 2022 wind power
capacity will increase by at least 60 GW and solar power capacity by
100 GW each year [43]. While that report did not factor in the impact of
COVID-19 on the industry, IRENA and WWEA [2,42] showed that 2020
recorded the highest increase in RES power installed since 2013. So,
while the pandemic may make short-term predictions unreliable, the
overall trend in installed RES capacity is unmistakably upward.
4
Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926
The increasing number of wind turbine farms and PV installations,
particularly photovoltaic micro-installations, causes problems in na­
tional power systems. This is mainly noticeable in low voltage networks,
which can experience uncontrolled increases in voltage and disconnec­
tion of micro-installations from the power supply [44]. A high concen­
tration of micro-installations can lead to the deterioration of electrical
quality, risk of network overload, voltage spikes above allowable limits,
and uncontrolled island operation of the system – while Adamek et al.
[45] focused on the Polish national grid, similar problems arise in other
countries.
K. Machaj et al.
Fig. 2. a) Percentage distribution of installed capacity in renewable energy
sources in 2020, b) Increase in installed capacity in wind and solar en­
ergy 2013–2020.
The development of RES obliges the main electricity production units
to be sub-peak power plants and requires them to shut down on demand.
This causes energy production costs to rise significantly. Another
problem relates to unplanned power flows, which are the result of un­
controlled energy production, e.g., by wind power plants. This increases
the Joule heating losses on the transmission lines and consequently in­
creases the service costs of the transmission line. Singh et al. mentioned
that in 2013 unplanned flow from Germany and Austria cost Polish
citizens 47 million euros [46].
2.3. Power-to-gas
Energy storage systems need to be developed to cope with the
anticipated increase in large RES installations and the issues they entail.
Power-to-gas hydrogen production (P2G) is the most promising concept,
and it has already been successfully implemented at both large and small
scales in various sectors. The European Hydrogen Roadmap focused on
hydrogen use in five major areas: (i) transportation by fuel decarbon­
ization, (ii) power generation from RES and their integration into the
power sector, (iii) heating and power for buildings (e.g., replacing nat­
ural gas with hydrogen in the grid) (iv) industry feedstock and energy (e.
g., replacement natural gas for process heat production), [47]. The Eu­
ropean Commission announced in September 2020 that around 350
billion euros will be invested to reach the goal of 55% emissions
reduction in the timeframe 2021–2030, which also includes investments
in P2G [48,49].
The core components of the P2G system are electrolyzers which
decompose water or steam into hydrogen and oxygen [50]. The Fuel
Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU) supports research
5
Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926
related to electrolysis and fuel cells. In addition to direct financing of
research and development activities, FCH-JU conducts numerous
studies and issues technical reports. Their publications [51–53] pro­
vided a thorough analysis of alkaline electrolysis (AEC) compared to
proton exchange membrane electrolysis (PEM). The reports show that
the process efficiency of hydrogen production using PEM could reach
70% by 2030. Another promising avenue to explore is solid oxide
electrolysis (SOE). The most important advantage of SOE is its ultra-high
efficiency, reaching virtually 100% [54,55]. The IRENA report from
2019 shows the cost reduction potential of industrial electrolysis sys­
tems in the next 30 years. The report shows that in 2020 SOE energy
demand was 45–55 kWh kgH−2 1 This is completely at odds with real data,
as there are SOE installations with energy consumption below 40 kWh
kg H−2 1 already available on the market [56]. PEM and AEC need more
than 50 kWh kgH−2 1 [50,57]. SOE is now the most expensive electrolysis
technology, but according to the report [50] and the expert assessment
[58] this is going to change within 10 years and the costs of all elec­
trolysis technologies will be similar, giving SOE an advantage. Chapter 6
of this review (From renewable sources of energy to ship) presents the
effect of a 6% change in electrolysis efficiency on the total efficiency of
producing ammonia (created from green hydrogen using water elec­
trolysis) from RES and then using it as a marine fuel.
The expected changes in the power industry will certainly affect the
cost of hydrogen. Increased supply and demand for hydrogen will
eventually lead to lower prices. The report by Christensen published in
2020 [59] provides projected hydrogen prices in Europe and the US
based on a Monte Carlo analysis. The analysis focuses mainly on RES
combined with different types of electrolyzers and predicts that the
median price of hydrogen in Europe will fall from $16.79 in 2025 to
$10.02 kg− 1 in 2050 and from $9.29 to $5.97 kg− 1 in the US. Many
factors were included in the study: CAPEX of electrolyzer and
compressor, fixed OPEX costs, electrolyzer replacement, as well as
electricity, water, piping, and storage costs. However, a deeper analysis
of the operating costs and changes in the efficiency of electrolysis sys­
tems over time could give more detailed results, which is important for
selecting electrolysis technology.
The changes also impact hydrogen production costs. Another IRENA
report [60] states that to be competitive (with hydrogen produced from
fossil fuels), renewable hydrogen must be produced at less than
$2.5 kg− 1. IRENA report estimates that the cost of producing hydrogen
from PV and especially from wind energy will become competitive with
hydrogen from fossil fuels in 2050 [60]. Clean Hydrogen Monitor 2021
estimated the costs of hydrogen in Europe [61]. “Gray hydrogen” had an
estimated cost of around $1.4 kg− 1 whereas the average cost of pro­
ducing hydrogen from grid electricity was $3.75 kg− 1. Levelized costs of
producing hydrogen from utility-scale PV vary between $3.1 and
$15.6 kg− 1, and from onshore and offshore wind power plants between
$2.5 and $9.1 kg− 1. In 2020 it was theoretically possible to attain the
level of $2.5 kg− 1. Lowering the cost of hydrogen also opens the way to
economically producing green alternative fuels, especially in Europe.
3. Ammonia
3.1. Ammonia as a fuel for industry
Alternative fuels could trigger a global reduction in CO2 emissions.
One fuel of interest is pure hydrogen, but due to cost and problems
related to storage and energy demand for compression/liquefaction, it is
not yet clear whether it will become the main energy carrier in the
transport sector [62]. Alternative fuel is ammonia, which is an excellent
hydrogen carrier [63] and is favored by the maritime sector [64–68].
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has set ambitious tar­
gets for reductions in GHG emissions. Total GHG emissions should fall
by at least 50% and CO2 emissions should fall by at least 70% below the
2008 figures by 2050 [69,70]. Consequently, DNV suggested that by
2050 at least 15% of long-distance ships should be fueled by ammonia or
K. Machaj et al.
hydrogen [71]. Companies have started to implement RES to produce
hydrogen by electrolysis, leading to the synthesis of NH3 for use in trade
and transport. For example, a 5 GW hydrogen/ammonia farm is being
set up in Saudi Arabia for these reasons.
Ammonia is an inorganic chemical composed of nitrogen and
hydrogen. It contains 17.6 wt% hydrogen [63,72]. It is also one of the
most widely produced inorganic chemicals and accounts for around
1.5% of global human CO2 emissions in 2016 [7]. Statistics show that
ammonia production has increased in step with the increasing popula­
tion since the 1900s [73]. In 2019, approximately 240 million tons of
ammonia were produced (Fig. 3) and it is predicted that in 2030 pro­
duction will increase to approximately 300 million tons [67,74,75].
Most of it is produced in four countries: China, India, Russia, and the
United States, but is traded worldwide [76–78]. Of which China and
India, despite huge production, are also leading importers of ammonia,
in contrast to Russia, which mainly exports NH3. Around 70% of
Fig. 3. Global ammonia production per country with import and export details [67,74–78].
6
Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926
ammonia (approx. 170 million tons) is intended for export [77].
Ammonia is imported and exported to countries on all continents (Fig. 3)
and as discussed in the next chapter, many of these countries also play a
role in shipbuilding.
If ammonia is taken up as a fuel, this will lead to diversification of the
production process. Ammonia is used mainly in the agriculture sector
(80%) [67], and the production of plastics, pharmaceuticals, and ex­
plosives [79]. As a carbon-free hydrogen carrier, ammonia would raise
the rate of global development of the hydrogen economy [68–72].
Ammonia production, transport, and storage technologies are already
well-developed owing to the current, wide-ranging applications of
ammonia [72,73,85]. It is stored in liquid form at various pressures and
temperatures. The ammonia liquefaction process is straightforward and
inexpensive compared to hydrogen [86,87]. For large capacities,
low-temperature storage is more economically feasible and can be
almost 16 times cheaper than hydrogen storage, which is technically
K. Machaj et al.
challenging and consumes a great deal of energy [88–92]. It is relatively
easy to release hydrogen from ammonia in the presence of a catalyst or
at a sufficiently high temperature [93].
3.2. Ammonia synthesis using green hydrogen
The most popular method of ammonia synthesis is the Haber-Bosch
process developed at the end of the 19th century. It is usually a high
temperature (400–600 ◦ C), high pressure (20–40 MPa) process, taking
place in the presence of catalysts [94]. Depending on the origin of the
energy used to produce ammonia, it is named based on the colors. And
so gray, also known as brown ammonia, is produced from the energy
obtained from fossil fuels (the term gray ammonia is used in this anal­
ysis). Blue ammonia is produced like gray, but the CO2 generated in the
production chain is captured and stored. Green ammonia is produced
using renewable energy.
As ammonia production is an expensive component of the green
ammonia economy, several new processes are currently under devel­
opment to boost efficiency and cut costs. One obvious path ahead is to
lower the temperature of the ammonia synthesis process by researching
new types of catalysts, with ruthenium-based compounds being a prime
contender [95–98]. Despite encouraging high activity at low tempera­
ture and low pressure, the main problem is that of replacing the current
cheap iron catalyst with an expensive ruthenium catalyst. Moreover, the
modifications that have to be made to the existing technology and re­
actors in the ammonia synthesis node have the knock-on effect of
necessitating changes to the synthesis loop and other processes. The
ruthenium catalyst will then have to undergo testing in industrial con­
ditions during long-term operation. The advent of green hydrogen might
kick-start these changes. At present, studies are often linked to electro­
chemical ammonia generation, which has the potential to reduce energy
demand by around 20% [99]. Another novel approach is photocatalyzed
ammonia production [100,101]. However, these methods are still in the
phase of basic research, with industrially unacceptable yields. For
example, in the case of photocatalytic methods under ambient temper­
ature and pressure conditions, a maximum of approx. 1.36 mmol g− 1 h− 1
of ammonia was obtained [8], which is unsatisfactory.
Cost reduction is a significant side of power-to-ammonia from an
economic point of view, as gray ammonia can be produced using fossil
fuels and green ammonia with RES [72]. Rouwenhorst et al. [72]
include in a review a comparison of catalysts, different variants of the
Haber-Bosch process, fuel cell technology including battolyser, nitrogen
production, and ammonia storage. It encompasses some commercially
available technologies and others under development.
As was shown in Ref. [72] the energy requirement for gray ammonia
production ranges from 7.6 to 11.7 kWh kgNH−3 1 and for green ammonia
from 7.5 to 11 kWh kgNH−3 1 [102]. The fusion of PEM electrolysis for
hydrogen production with the Haber-Bosch process requires from 8.6 to
9.5 kWh kgNH−3 1 and low-temperature electrochemical ammonia syn­
thesis from 7.5 to 8.1 kWh kgNH−3 1 [103,104]. Energy consumption is
very much scale dependent. Rouwenhorst et al. [72] concluded that the
greatest green ammonia production efficiency would be achieved for the
Haber-Bosch process combined with SOFC–H or battolyser, but at pre­
sent, these technologies are only being researched at the academic level.
Mukelabai et al. [105] created a model of RSOC fusion with the
Haber-Bosch process (reversible SOFC) to boost the efficiency of green
ammonia production. They found that these solutions consume less
power than green ammonia production with PEM electrolysis and gray
ammonia production with steam reforming. They found that the lowest
energy consumption was 6.41 kWh kgNH−3 1. Although RSOC does not
exist at the industry scale, the modeled system shows that SOC cells can
be useful in both operating states for ammonia production. This gives
them an advantage over competing methods of electrolysis and opens up
possibilities of less energy-intensive ammonia production processes.
7
Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926
3.3. Ammonia production economy
Green ammonia production is not a new idea. Norsk Hydro produced
ammonia for most of the 20th century with the Haber-Bosch process,
using alkaline electrolysis and an air separation unit (ASU) powered by
hydropower [67]. In recent years, green ammonia has become wide­
spread globally, in particular for transport purposes in Norway,
Australia, China, Germany, Israel, and Japan. In addition, the first
commercial green ammonia production projects are underway, sup­
ported by corporations such as A.P. Møller –Mærsk A/S, Air Products &
Chemicals, and Thyssenkrupp.
In terms of the processes involved, it is a long haul from RES to power
generation from ammonia in the maritime sector. To begin with, there is
the conversion of energy into electricity, then hydrogen production from
electrolysis with gas cleaning, the Haber-Bosch process with nitrogen
generation by an ASU, liquefication of ammonia, transport, and storage,
and finally conversion in the engine or fuel cell. To this end, several
techno-economic analyses were performed concerning ammonia pro­
duction from RES, together with entire additional processes.
In 2013 Morgan presented a detailed report [106] on ammonia
production using energy produced by an offshore wind power plant.
Based on the technologies available at that time, it was found that, on a
large scale, alkaline electrolyzers are the best solution; highly efficient
SOE electrolysis was not considered. The report states that the cost of
producing ammonia is on average $1224 per metric ton, while the
minimum cost is set at $554 per ton [106]. In 2017 Morgan et al. [85]
looked at ammonia synthesis plants supplied by offshore wind energy.
Their model shows that the minimum cost of green ammonia production
per ton is $580. Moreover, it was presented that this solution can release
5 times less CO2 per ton of produced green ammonia compared to
conventional ammonia synthesis [85]. In 2019 Ikäheimo et al. [107]
developed five scenarios of ammonia production from a mix of RES in
the Baltic and the North Sea areas. Ammonia production costs in the
range of $500 – $613 per ton and for the basic scenario around $545 per
ton. Since the cost of the electrolysis system is falling year-on-year, the
cost of ammonia production should trend downwards. These academic
works do not, however, compare costs of production with other syn­
thetic fuels such as methanol or synthetic CH4.
A maritime industry reports [67] from 2020 considered harnessing
solar and wind power plants to produce ammonia. The authors of the
report do not focus on a deep analysis of whole additional processes but
describe ammonia use from the implementation point of view. They
analyzed the marketplace and the problems and hazards of ammonia use
on board ships. They also compared fuels. They estimated that, based on
current established technology, it takes 10 MWh of electrical power
from RES to produce a ton of ammonia. According to this estimate in
Ref. [67], around 700 GW installed in wind power plants and 700 GW
installed in photovoltaic power plants will be enough to supply 100% of
marine fuel consumption. This comprehensive report also discusses
projected ammonia prices over the next 30 years, depending on the
method of production. As green ammonia production technology de­
velops, its price will probably be close to conventional prices: around
$250 ton− 1. Much of the cost estimation in Ref. [67] – such as for future
CO2 emission penalty cost was assumed in a wide range (25–75 USD
tCO−2 1), which may lead to inaccuracies in results. Fig. 4 shows the cost
reduction in ammonia production over the last 10 years and expected
future costs based on the simulations presented in the report [67,106,
107]. The results from 2019 [107] do not fit the pattern of the pre­
dictions from other independent results but are focused just on the in­
dustry in Europe [67,106]. However, it is significant that the price of
gray ammonia over time may increase in line with, for example, an in­
crease in the price of natural gas. It seems to be the real scenario since
the price of CO2 emission in the carbon market in 2021 increased from
around $29 (33 €) per ton to even $78 (89 €) per ton on the 7th of
December. Therefore, green ammonia seems to be an even more inter­
esting solution [108].
K. Machaj et al.
Fig. 4. Cost of ammonia produced from RES based on literature estimations
[67,106,107].
Ammonia is traded all over the world. Huge importers and exporters
such as Japan and Trinidad and Tobago can trade only and exclusively
through maritime transport. Fig. 5 shows countries with ammonia ter­
minals. There are 120 terminals worldwide, mostly for import though
some are import and export terminals [67]. In 2019 ammonia world
maritime trade was estimated at 17.5 Mt [67]. That is, more than 10%
(Fig. 3) of ammonia intended for trade was transported using cargo
ships. This demonstrates that there is good infrastructure for transport
and handling ammonia cargo. Increased production of and trade in
green ammonia for fuel purposes should not, therefore, pose a problem
from the technical point of view and should result in synergies with
maritime transport, in particular as regards power supplied from coastal
RES.
4. Maritime industry
4.1. Emission reduction implication
Seaborne transport dominates the global trade market as the most
Fig. 5. Countries with ammonia terminals [67].
8
Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926
cost-effective and energy-efficient type of bulk cargo transport [109].
Since the 1970s the amount of goods transported by ships increased
from 2.6 to 11 billion tons per year [109]. At present, ships are mostly
fueled by fossil fuels, and IMO in 4th Greenhouse Gas Study (2020)
estimated that in 2018 they accounted for 2.8% of global CO2 emissions
[6]. The total world fleet numbers are just under 100,000 cargo ships
and in 2020 a 3% increase in the number of ships was recorded [109].
But this is just a small part of ship production. Total ship production is
shown on the map in Fig. 6. In China alone, more than 23 million load
tons were produced in 2020 [110]. Asia is producing 97% of all ships.
Each year more than 50 million load tons leave shipyards, and most of
them will support GHG emissions [110] (see Fig. 7).
Reducing these emissions will have an important impact on limiting
global anthropogenic GHG emissions and the projected global temper­
ature increase [111]. Accordingly, the 3rd IMO GHG Study (2014) [38]
DNV [112] and UMAS [113] predict that ammonia will be one of the
main marine fuels in the future, with anywhere between 15% and even
95% of ships being fueled with NH3. Actually, only 0.2% of the ships
currently on order will be fueled by ammonia [112]. In light of global
trends, the reduction of GHG emissions must be achieved not only from
the CO2 perspective but also in terms of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides,
and particulates [70,114,115]. Comparing Figs. 3, 5 and 6 one can see
that several shipbuilding countries also produce and import/export
ammonia. They are present worldwide (e.g., Africa – Egypt; North
America – US; Europe – Germany, Poland; Asia – China, Japan, India;
Oceania – Australia).
4.2. Maritime fuel economy
There are two main ways to achieve the emission reduction goals: (i)
more efficient energy conversion devices, and (ii) fuel change. Both
problems are complex and dealt with in detail in reviews from 2021 [12,
116]. Al-Enazi et al. [12] present a broad-based comparison of fuels
[101] but do not include an overview of fuel utilization technology.
Mallouppas and Yfantis [116] focus on fuels but also include a useful
overview of ship power systems. However, there is little deep analysis
for one particular solution for powering ships e.g., solid oxide fuel cells.
K. Machaj et al.
Fig. 6. Countries with the highest ship production representing each continent [110].
Fig. 7. Energy demand for the assumed project: pure LNG, dual fuel with
different ammonia content, pure ammonia.
Scientists, economists and politicians approach the prospect of
alternative fuels in different ways. It is not just the industry need to be
change, but society as a whole. There is a range of potential fuels: liq­
uefied natural gas (LNG), methanol, hydrogen, ammonia, and bio-based
fuels (e.g., bio-diesel, bio-LNG) [114,117,118]. Other solutions harness
wind power and electricity to reduce fuel consumption [119].
New alternative fuels entail a good deal of changes associated with
cost, infrastructure, and safety. Many factors have an impact on the
readiness of the technology. In 2015, Matzen et al. [94] presented a
techno-economic analysis of ammonia and methanol production based
on a wind power plant. For the fuel comparison, they used a
multi-criteria matrix taking into account economy (8), and sustainabil­
ity (9) indicators with different weighting. They found that
non-fossil-ammonia synthesis can outperform hydrogen and fossil
methanol. That said, non-fossil-methanol received the highest score. The
publication of Zhao et al. [120] sets out the individual costs of producing
hydrogen, methanol, and ammonia and comes to a different conclusion:
ammonia is the cheapest fuel, and its greatest advantage over methanol
9
Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926
is the high cost of CO2 separation from the air, which is an integral part
of producing methanol. Deniz et al. [121] consider eleven factors for
LNG, diesel, H2, methanol, and ethanol (methanol and ethanol created
with fossil fuel energy). Their multi-criteria decision analysis shows that
LNG is the most promising fuel. Similar results were shown in 2017 by
Ren and Liang [122] and by Hansson et al., in 2019 [68]. Parallel to this
research, the industry started to introduce LNG as a transition energy
source on ships, but as LNG is also a GHG fuel other alternatives must be
found. There have been a plethora of studies that look at other tech­
nologies e.g., wind power, nuclear power, and electricity [122]. Gilbert
et al. [117] showed that biofuels can be a good addition, but the manner
of plant cultivation must change, adding complexity to the process. In
2019, F. Baldi et al. [65] presented a techno-economic perspective of
ammonia usage including transport, storage, and energy conversion.
The results show that ammonia is cheaper and more efficient to use than
liquid hydrogen. However, M. Al-Breiki and Y. Bicer [64] did a complex
analysis that takes into account at least seven factors. The results showed
that ammonia is a rather expensive fuel compared to LNG and DME or
methanol. Whereas ammonia itself does not contain CO2, the ammonia
production process is energy intensive – energy mainly converted from
fossil fuels –which is also important in any sort of comprehensive
analysis. In 2020 Hansson et al. [66] published another complex study
with multi-criteria decision analysis and energy cost modeling. They
indicate that the case for ammonia as a marine fuel is very ambiguous:
its potential is high but prices may fluctuate due to many issues, and
fundamental, holistic changes are required in the whole chain of pro­
duction and use. As the cost of CO2 emission is increasing, in the long
term it could become a significant factor in making the operational cost
of ammonia in ships lower than LNG or methanol [123]. Clearly, the
scientists disagree. They obtain different results depending on the fac­
tors they include. However, it is important that in order to achieve a full
CO2 divestment, not only is a fuel change necessary but so is the form of
production. In sum, ammonia and methanol seem to be the optimal
marine fuels of the future.
4.3. Fuel hazards
Chemical fuels pose health and environmental hazards. Ammonia,
despite being toxic to humans, is no worse in this regard than other
K. Machaj et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926

discussed here fuels. It is highly odorous and can be detected by humans 4.4. LNG vs ammonia
in very low concentrations (17 ppm). It is also a highly reactive but
nonetheless stable substance; soluble in water giving off heat. Ammonia 4.4.1. Storage
in the presence of nitric acid and ammonia nitrate can lead to the for­ LNG is currently the only alternative marine fuel in common use. The
mation of hazardous solid particles at the nanometric scale [124]. But first LNG supply system dedicated to passenger ferries in the EU was
this problem seems to be more dangerous for the city agglomeration produced in Poland and started carrying passengers in 2015 [131].
with high pollution than for the offshore solutions. In comparison to LNG gas is stored in cryogenic conditions. The liquid phase in the
LNG and methanol its flammability is much lower, and to ignite must be vessel depends on pressure, with LNG kept at a temperature below
preheated [125,126]. In another industrial report [127] the authors − 120 ◦ C (at 10 bar). Then it goes through a re-gasifier and exchanger-
noted that ammonia is a refrigerant (stored at − 33 ◦ C) not a cryogenic vaporizer to reach room temperature. In 2021 0.5% of ships in opera­
substance, so poses less risk of cryogenic burns than LNG or liquid tion were powered by alternative fuels (including batteries) and 0.19%
hydrogen. Table 2 shows the hazards of four selected fuels based on the by LNG [112]. Moreover, 12% of ships on order will be powered by
NFPA704. Despite different side effects, ammonia was classified in the alternative fuels and 6.1% by LNG. The ambitious GHG emission goals
same group as LNG: 3 (can cause serious or permanent injury). set by IMO will most likely be missed owing to the sluggish increase in
Ayvali et al. [126] also referred to the dangers of ammonia in water, the number of ships over the last 5 years, which has varied between 3%
as it can be deadly to fauna and flora in certain circumstances. The and 5% per annum [109] coupled with the slow pace of introducing new
actual effects of ammonia spillage on the water are difficult to predict LNG-powered units and the absence of other widely used alternative
due to several factors. fuels.
First of all, the course of the reaction according to Ref. [128] is LNG for fuel gas systems can be stored in different types of tanks: A,
dependent on the PH of the water and its temperature. The higher the PH B, and C [132,133]. The first two are limited to 0.7 bar because they are
of the water and its temperature, the greater the concentration of adapted to the shape of the hull. They need an additional gas
ammonia in relation to the ammonium ion. Apart from the concentra­ compression system behind the tank. Generally, they have huge capac­
tion of ammonia in water, its negative impact on living organisms de­ ities and they are used in the deep-sea sector.
pends mainly on the time of exposure. According to Ref. [129] C-type tanks are cylindrical or bilobed. They can be pressurized, but
recommendations, the concentration of ammonia should not exceed fuel pressure must be kept below the set pressure of the tank pressure
3–6 mg/l for short-term exposure and 0.3–2 mg/l for long-term expo­ relief valves for 15 days [132,133]. Their position on the ship is more
sure. It is also assumed that a concentration lower than 0.02 mg/l is safe flexible, but they are smaller in volume and have a larger
for fish reproduction. mass-to-volume ratio. They could readily switch fuel from LNG to
Although ammonia may have a negative impact on the aquatic ammonia. Due to their shape, they can be customized by size for the
environment, it seems that the risks of using it as a fuel are low. This is desired application e.g., a small tank for a river barge or a large tank for
due to several factors. First, the large difference between the normal deep sea activities. But no recorded C-type LNG vessels are approaching
saturation temperature of ammonia and the temperature of the water the size of the largest A and B tanks.
means that after spillage significant part of the ammonia will evaporate Based on the above information and the fact that ammonia at at­
without contaminating the water. Secondly, the ratio of the amount of mospheric pressure is liquid at − 33.3 ◦ C, LNG vessels have great po­
ammonia used as fuel to the amount of surrounding water is so small tential for ammonia storage. SS316 and SS304 are widely used types of
that even with complete leakage of the fuel, the concentration should stainless steel in the cryogenic industry [134]. They are austenitic
not exceed the permissible values. The final argument is that ammonia stainless steel with Cr content higher than 10%, which results in high
as a nitrogen carrier is a nutrient, and over time, as a result of natural corrosion resistance due to the presence of a self-healing oxidation layer
processes called the nitrogen cycle, it will transform into nitrides, which on the surface [135]. As it is shown in Ref. [136], liquid and gaseous
are fertilizers for plants [130]. ammonia have high chemical compatibility for SS316, which is also a
commonly used steel in the maritime sector [137–139]. The seals used in
such systems – made of Teflon, Kalrez, or neoprene – present an
important issue in themselves [140,141]. For liquified fuel storage,
ammonia energy density (LHV) is 12.9 GJ m− 3 (Table 3) and it requires
Table 2 around 1.45 times more space than LNG to deliver the same amount of
Comparison of fuel hazardous (based on NFPA 704) [125]. energy. Consequently, a changeover of marine fuel from LNG to
Criteria Ammonia Methanol LNG Hydrogen ammonia means more frequent refueling, larger storage tanks, or dual
fuel solutions.
Health 3 1 3 0
Can cause Can cause Can cause No hazard A simple estimate was done of the holding time for a cryogenic tank
serious or significant serious or beyond that of designed for LNG but filled with NH3. Holding times were calculated
permanent irritation. permanent ordinary based on the numerical calculations of the thermal losses and the first
injury. injury. combustible law of thermodynamics. CoolPack software was used to estimate am­
material.
Flammability 1 3 4 4
monia’s thermodynamic properties. Table 4 presents the holding time of
Must be Can be ignited Burns readily. Burns readily. an 80 m3 LNG tank for the maritime sector designed at the Wroclaw
preheated under almost Rapidly or Rapidly or University of Science and Technology in Poland. The results show that
before all ambient completely completely for the same tank the ammonia holding time is an order of magnitude
ignition can temperature vaporizes at vaporizes at
larger. The high holding time for ammonia derives mostly from the
occur. conditions. atmospheric atmospheric
pressure and pressure and smaller temperature difference and higher energy capacity of the sub­
normal normal stance. On other hand, it is wrath to mention that ammonia has a similar
ambient ambient density and boiling point at atmospheric pressure to LPG (liquefied
temperature. temperature. petroleum gas). The content of LPG can vary, and in Table 3 properties
Instability 0 0 0 0
Normally Normally Normally Normally
of ammonia are compared to the properties of liquid propane (CoolPack)
stable, even stable, even in stable, even in stable, even in The conclusion can be drawn that LNG storage tanks are ‘oversized’ from
in fire fire condition fire condition fire condition a standpoint of view related to the thermodynamic parameters they
condition should be easily adapted to handle ammonia.
Special 0 0 0 0
Following Hansson et al. [66] three categories of the ships were

10
K. Machaj et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926

Table 3
Comparative values of storage and energy conversion for ammonia and methane [142–144].
Fuel LHV LHV Boiling temp at 1 bar Liquified density Normal density Equivalent hydrogen number
ρl ρn
3 1 3 3
GJ m− MJ kg− ◦
C kg m− kg m− –

Methane 18.7 50.0 − 130.4 373.8 0.767 4

Ammonia 12.7 18.8 − 33.59 682.3 0.860 1.5
LPGa 22.8 46.4 − 43.41 491.4 1.849 10
a
Properties for liquid propane.

boiling regimes apply to NH3 stored at − 33.3 ◦ C and LNG at − 141.7 ◦ C

Table 4
[149]. Table 6 shows the thermodynamic properties of the two fuels.
Comparison of ammonia (p – pressurized, r – refrigerated) and methane holding
While ammonia has better heat capacity (liquid, gas, and heat of vapor),
time in an 80 m3 tank [145].
the high-temperature difference for LNG leads to more heat from the
Properties Symbol Unit CH4 NH3(p) NH3(r)
heating medium. Another way to reach the CHF for ammonia is to
Volume V m 3
80 80 80 provide a heat flux above 500 kW m− 1 [148,150–152]. Although
Max. filling coeff. f – 0.9 0.9 0.9 different values for various geometries were specified in the cited works,
Storage Temp. T ◦
C − 141.7 20 − 33.54
it is unclear what the CHF is when ammonia is boiling in the pipeline
Working pressure pabs bar 7 7 1
Valve opening pressure pv_abs bar 11 11 11 system. Analysis of the switchover of the ship’s fuel supply system from
Total energy losses Q W 795 65 378 LNG to NH3 is a point of interest and may potentially lead in time to
Holding time t Days 14.3 532.7 349.9 greater flexibility for LNG ships in operation or in the production phase.

4.4.3. Fuel consumption

selected for comparison (Table 5). For a short sea ship, just 3500 GJ is
Based on the Remontowa LNG Systems Ltd Rumia container ship
required, necessitating a tank holding 156 m3 of LNG. Therefore, it is
project – which used a Wärtsilä 9L34DF engine (specifications in
reasonable to have one C-type tank, whereas switching to ammonia
Table 7) – fuel demand for ammonia and methane was estimated. The
means a second fuel system needs to be added. The C tank could be more
results are shown in Fig. 6 above. The ship was designed to run on
adapted to the second fuel, promising good synergy from a dual fuel
methane, with 2930 kg h− 1 LNG demand. The effect is 2.0159 MJ (fuel)
point of view. Depending on the fuel properties, a dual fuel solution with
MJ (engine)− 1 of power consumption, achieving 48.7% efficiency (LHV-
two systems based on same capacity tanks gives more energy storage
basis). In exceptional cases, the engine may operate under overload and
capacity compared to ammonia alone. The matter becomes complicated
output 110% of maximum power (in that case 4.95 MW). This enables a
in deep sea and container ships, where storage capacity is bigger than
greater range of work. For a ship operating on an internal combustion
typical C-type vessels [131]. Due to this fact, it is probably more suitable
engine, fuel mass flow increases 1.45 times after the change from
to use A or B-type vessels. However, it might prove impossible to switch
methane to ammonia, owing mainly to different fuel energy densities.
between ammonia and LNG due to the very low temperature of LNG
The change to ammonia may cause engineering problems related to the
stored under pressure.
fuel delivery system. Dual fuel solutions may also lead to problems with
Based on Table 5 and according to the whole ammonia transported
measurements and operations. The power density of five different
by cargo ships and transferred in ammonia terminals in 2019 (17.5 Mt –
Wärtsilä maritime engines [153,154] was estimated and ranged from 32
Chapter 3.3) roughly 4500 container ships could be powered. Moreover,
to 50 kW m− 3. To improve efficiency, SOFC systems are also proposed as
in study from 2019 [146] it was performed that mean power con­
sources for energy conversion on ships. In 2007 an available SOFC-based
sumption of container ship is around 42%. Based on these data, it can be
system achieved power density in excess of 19 kW m− 3 [155], but
estimated that the ammonia would be enough for around 94 days, or 1/4
technology relating to power density has advanced since then. The ef­
of the trip if cargo ship will be fully fueled. This shows that the maritime
ficiency of SOFC exceed 50% [10].
industry is partially ready to introduce ammonia as a fuel.
Diesel engines are a typical power source in the maritime sector.
They are flexible and can be used with various fuels. The main problem
4.4.2. Regasification
is with the exhaust gases they produce CO2 and NOX among others.
Regasification in the heat exchanger is an important factor in the
Diesel engines cope badly with ammonia as a fuel; although CO2 emis­
handling of LNG. The issue under consideration is whether the same
sions are lower, more NOX are generated during combustion and an
heat exchanger can be used for the regasification of ammonia. Based on
additional reduction catalyst is needed [156]. Other factors that neces­
the design of the LNG regazifier [145], it is roughly stated using the
sitate design changes in the diesel engine are the high ignition temper­
Davis-David correlation [147] that the heat exchanger used for LNG is
ature (around 650 ◦ C), low flame temperature and low stoichiometric
too small for use with ammonia (the length of a single pipe heat
exchanger is 1.6 times smaller). Whereas the critical heat flux (CHF) for
LNG is a temperature difference between the wall and the fluid below Table 6
20 ◦ C, for ammonia the CHF is above 40 ◦ C [148]. Hence, different Comparison of ammonia and methane properties for a 5 kW heat exchanger.
Properties Symbol Unit CH4 NH3
Table 5 Pressure P bar 7 1
Fuel demand for three ships categories. Boiling temp. Tboil C 141.7 33.54
(Tin)
Properties Unit Short Sea Deep Sea Container
Outlet temp. Tout C 10 10
Ship Ship Ship − 1
Enthalpy difference of substance ΔH kJ kg 760.5 14,670
Engine power kW 2400 11,000 23,000 between inlet and outlet
1
Voyage range full H 162 720 360 Liquid specific heat cwl kJ kg− 3846 4464
speed K− 1
1
Tank capacity GJ 3500 71,300 74,600 Gas specific heat cwg kJ kg− 2652 2289
Ammonia volume m3 275 5600 5900 K− 1
LNG volume m3 187 3800 4000 Heat of vapor cvap kJ kg− 1
440 1370

11
K. Machaj et al.
Table 7
Specification of the combustion engines of an exemplary container ship and
design report [154].
Wärtsilä 9L34DF Methane Unit
Energy consumption 7387 kJ kWh− 1
Fuel consumption 2.0519 MJ (fuel) MJ (engine)−
Fuel demand 2930 kg h− 1
Engine Power 4.5 MW
Number of engines 4 –
Overload 110 %
flame speed [156,157]. Hence, ammonia cannot be used in current,
unmodified ship engines, solid oxide fuel cells are a promising tech­
nology as sources of heat and electric power source in the maritime
sector, as they can work with a wide range of fuels. The next chapter
reviews and compares SOFCs and diesel engines.
5. Solid oxide fuel cells
SOFCs are electrochemical devices in which chemical energy is
directly converted to electricity through chemical reactions and the flow
of electrons in a closed circuit. They are commercially available from a
small scale up to 1 kW [158,159] and in systems higher than 100 kW. In
California, there are a few installations up to 1 MW [160–162] and in
Korea, contracts were signed in 2019 to build two large-scale in­
stallations of 80 and 100 MW [163]. Most solutions are based on natural
gas as fuel, with external or internal reforming [164]. Even if they reach
higher overall efficiency, they will still emit CO2. Introducing ammonia
into the picture will lead to major reductions.
5.1. Ammonia powered SOFC
In 2021 a comprehensive review of a direct ammonia fuel cell was
published [10]. The analysis included SOFC types, the material study of
the components, degradation overview, and numerical investigation.
However, the study focused on scientific progress, not practical
implementation.
Green hydrogen stored in ammonia can be released to produce green
energy directly inside a SOFC [9,165–172]. Scientists and engineers
have long sought to optimize this process [169,173]. High research
effort going into comparing SOFC–O (ion conduction electrolyte) and
SOFC–H (proton-conducting electrolyte). Maffei et al. [174] 2008 found
that SOFC–H working on ammonia for 500 h does not experience per­
formance in a way that deviates from the norm. Similar work was done
on the BCGO electrolyte by Zhang and Yang [175]. This solution pro­
vides the difference in partial pressure between H2 and H2O at the
SOFC–H outlet and the corresponding Nernst voltage is higher than that
of the SOFC–O Also, the reaction between H2 and O2 occurs on the air
side, so there is no impact of vapor on the direct decomposition of NH3
[176]. Due to material and technology reasons, SOFC–O is a more
widespread model. In 2016 Cinti et al. [177] determined that using YSZ
(yttria-stabilized zirconia) electrolyte in an ammonia-fueled SOFC–O
can increase the efficiency of the device due to the endothermic reaction
of ammonia decomposition. Hence, less cooling air is required to sta­
bilize the temperature of the device [177]. Okanishi et al. [165]
compared the performance of SOFC with internal, external, and
auto-thermal ammonia decomposition with 1000 h operation [165].
They found that the fuel cell did not experience the degradation changes
normally associated with the use of ammonia as fuel. The effect of water,
hydrogen, and inert gases on the level of ammonia cracking inside
SOFCs was also explored [178–180]. Using other gases to dilute
ammonia reduces the rate of thermal cracking, resulting in less
decomposition of ammonia. The addition of hydrogen has a greater in­
fluence than inert argon [178]. Thus, ammonia in dual fuel mode should
not be mixed after CH4 steam reforming. In 2020 Shy et al. [172] were
the first to perform a series of tests on a pressurized SOFC powered by
Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926
ammonia. They reported increased degradation in hypertension and
better cell performance. They did not observe any other unusual phe­
nomena [172,181]. It is worth mentioning that the research was carried
out on button cells, i.e., small scale. No experiments of this nature were
found in relation to typical size cells, which can be used on an industrial
1 scale.
A second, parallel path of research also exists. Ammonia decompo­
sition depends on temperature, pressure, gas mixture and the presence
of a catalyst. A review from 2021 showed that Ni is one of the best metals
for these criteria [182]. For this reason, attempts are being made to find
the best catalyst – based on nickel – which can be used as a material in
the fuel electrode to improve ammonia conversion and especially direct
decomposition, for use with materials that complement SOFC technol­
ogy [179,180,183,184].
Another topic is related to the NOx emission when SOFCs are fed by
ammonia. Recent studies show that SOFCs do not produce any pollut­
ants during their operation, in particular, thermal NOx are at a negligibly
low level [10,76,185,186]. Experimental and theoretical research by Ma
et al. [187] showed that NO formation increased with increasing tem­
perature, but its amount was negligible or undetectable over a wide
range of temperatures and NH3 flow rates. It should be mentioned that
the presence of NOx emissions depends on the type of anode. The
experimental results presented in Ref. [188] showed that the silver
anode coupled with the iron catalyst gave a power efficiency similar to
that obtained with pure hydrogen. However, a problem with NOx for­
mation was reported if a platinum anode was used. Finally, the authors
speculated that the emissions could be avoided in a nickel anode-based
SOFC system. On the other hand, the research of Dekker et al. [189]
showed that the use of the Ni/8YSZ anode can result in a conversion of
NH3 that exceeds 99.996% and ensures that most of the NH3 is broken
down into H2 and N2. It was shown that for temperatures below 950 ◦ C,
the NOx concentration at the outlet of the fuel cell was below 0.5 ppm
and approximately 4 ppm at 1000 ◦ C.
An important element significantly accelerating and facilitating the
introduction of ammonia and fuel cells to the maritime sector is the
definition of requirements for such installations by classifiers such as
DNV. In the latest edition of the rules for ships classification [190],
published in June 2021, DNV for the first time specifies the number of
requirements for such installations. These requirements comprehen­
sively cover the design, manufacture, security, and operation of such
systems. While DNV’s ammonia requirements are clearly defined, fuel
cells are still being assessed on a case-by-case basis.
5.2. Dynamic SOFC operation
The main challenge facing SOFC on board ships is frequent load
change. The most complex problems related to the static and dynamic
performance tests of SOFC under given mission parameters. With marine
diesel engines, there are a few types of tests. The first test (Table 8) is the
water load trial for a genset powered with MDO (Marine Diesel Oil). In
these dynamic load tests, turbo-generator frequency and voltage should
not exceed ± 10% of nominal frequency and +20/-15% of nominal
voltage. The test is performed with the stepwise load changes from 0% to
Table 8
Check load trial for genset in MDO powered
mode.
Load, % Time, min
25 15
50 15
75 15
100 2h
110 15
75 5
50 5
25 5
12
K. Machaj et al.
33%, from 33% to 60%, from 60% to 100%, and from 100% to 0%.
These kinds of tests are not well-suited to the SOFC working mode, but
they are currently the only tests that can compare the performance of
these two different power systems.
Since SOFCs generate DC, an inverter is needed in the system. SOFCs
are relatively sensitive to thermal loads, which can potentially damage
the cell or decrease its useful life due to several degradation mechanisms
that take place when the cell is exposed to high load changes [191,192].
In 2007 a SOFC-GT system was modeled, showing that PI controller
can give satisfactory results as regards power control, but at the cost of
system efficiency. In 2013, a SOFC simulation was performed with the
power load increasing and decreasing by 10%. The response times for
stabilization of all parameters were around 15 min for load increases and
around 7 min for load decreases [193]. D’Andrea et al. [194] presented a
SOFC model with experimental validation where load changes of around
5% were implemented every 9 h. Brunaccini et al. [191] showed a model
of a hybrid SOFC with a high-temperature battery system enabling sta­
ble operation, with slight changes in power demand met by the batteries
[191]. The SOFC can operate for an extended period, even if the energy
demand increases 2.5 times. For these reasons, standardization tests for
a system of this type are likely to be adapted to meet the new
requirements.
Due to these facts, it is obvious that to boost stability, efficiency, and
SOFC lifetime, a battery system should be installed to stabilize the
operating parameters of the cell. This approach is often adopted in
stationary systems with SOFC [191,195]. But it creates new problems.
Table 9 shows the space and weight of a 4.5 MW SOFC system, 4.5 MW
ICE with generator system, and batteries that provide 8 h of power for a
ship according to applicable rules [196]. The coupling of SOFC and
batteries is an interesting solution, but it triggers requirements for more
space and ship-carrying capacity. However, based on the Wärtsilä Cor­
poration product guide [197] and onboard system descriptions [198],
space can be saved by removing or replacing additional diesel engine
systems such as (i) the lubrication system (ii) air starting compressor
unit, (iii) machinery room and exhaust gas ventilation unit, (iv) cooling
water system (v) general valve unit, and (vi) electricity generator.
Moreover, due to the lack of moving parts, fuel cells do not need a spare
parts service, which also opens the way to volume and weight savings.
Therefore, despite SOFCs having lower power density, savings in space
and weight can be found due to the lack of additional systems. Also, it is
worth mentioning that one of the biggest advantages of SOFCs system is
modularity. Because they can be stacked in small units the working
space can be better managed from the point of view of saving space as
well as the appropriate load on the ship. It can be also an advantage in
terms of stack exchange because SOFCs must be exchanged after a
period between 5 and 10 years, which is their huge disadvantage. It can
be also an advantage in terms of stack exchange because SOFCs must be
exchanged after a period between 5 and 10 years, which is their huge
disadvantage. However, from the point of view of uneven wear of cells,
the modularity of the system will allow for easy replacement of units
during regular service. This is easily doable thanks to the modular design
of SOFC stacks which can be removed in a manner similar to
plug-and-play systems with specific designs and features enabling such
manipulations. System design which is relevant to SOFC stacks makes it
possible to easily replace stacks with access required only from two
Table 9
Comparison between the space and weight of SOFC [155], diesel [153,154] and
batteries [199] based on industrial data. Battery capacity was estimated for 8 h
of power demand [196].
Properties SOFC Wärtsilä 9L34DF with generator Batteries
Power, MW 4.5 4.5 – electrode is expected.
Capacity, MWh – – 36
Volume, m3 236.3 126.5 180
Weight, tones 140 84 480
13
Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926
sides. Positioning of the flanges and instrumentation typically covers
one wall of the hotbox for the reduction of thermal bridges. With our
hands-on experience in handling various SOFC stacks we believe that
SOFC-based systems require much less space for manipulation during
maintenance in comparison with internal combustion engineers.
Additionally, SOFC systems readily combine with other energy sys­
tems to boost efficiency and cut emissions. Campanari et al. [200]
compared the performance of the SOFC system with a steam turbine and
gas turbine. Similar tests were presented by van Biert et al. [201]. Both
studies show that the highest efficiency is achieved by a pressurized
system with a gas turbine. As Mitsubishi, for example, is conducting
research on ammonia-fueled gas turbines, this may be a desirable so­
lution. Sapra et al. [202] analyzed a natural gas-fueled SOFC-ICE for the
maritime sector. Their model showed that splitting 50-50 (SOFC-ICE)
750 kW power improves efficiency by around 7.2%, with fuel utilization
of 82%. Greater load on the SOFC can further improve efficiency. This
all-lowers CO2 and NOx emissions by as much as 20% and 60%,
respectively [202]. Some studies focus on energy management systems
in a ship powered by batteries or fuel cells [203–206]. This issue is
important because changes in the power system drive changes in the
way energy is produced and supplied. Haseltalab et al. [204] focused on
the ICE with batteries and they decided to conduct a small experiment
and then simulate energy management in a river environment. How­
ever, experimental evidence for real-scale results is lacking in these
complex studies. In Ref. [205] an analysis of the functioning of the en­
ergy management system on board a ship in port was performed. The
research considered energy storage, production of energy from renew­
able sources as well as transmission and consumption of energy from the
grid. An interesting addition would be the ability to engage in fuel
production directly on board using RSOC. In 2021 Haseltalab et al.
[206] show that a ship can be fully powered by SOFC and batteries.
Their comparison shows that emissions can be up to 50% lower than
with the conventional diesel engine. However, these studies focused on
the analysis of a dredger, not on powering a vessel for transport pur­
poses. Moreover, other studies [203–206] give ship load curves that can
be used for dynamic testing of SOFC systems.
New technologies are also explored by practical, industrial demon­
stration projects. The first LNG-fueled SOFC on a cruise ship – as an
additional integrated system with a capacity of 50 kW – will be installed
on MSC World Europa for electricity and heat production [207] The ship
is to be commissioned in 2022. The ShipFC consortium was co-financed
with EUR 10 million from the European Horizon 2020 fund [208] to
retrofit the vessel Viking Energy with a large 2 MW ammonia fuel cell in
2023. The project will involve the scale-up of a 100 kW fuel cell to 2 MW
so Viking Energy can sail for 3000 h a year on clean fuel: ammonia
produced from green energy. In Japan, the “Green Innovation Fund
Project/Development Project for Next-Generation Ships/Development
of Ammonia-Fueled Ships” was launched in June 2023 to part-finance
the production of ships in this class [209].
6. From renewable energy sources to ships
A simplified illustration of energy conversion from RES through
ammonia synthesis into propeller power is presented in Fig. 8. It is based
on the above-mentioned documents and our own calculations. It can
clearly be seen that the widespread application of electricity from RES in
the economy is a key factor in producing green ammonia. Accompa­
nying the production of ammonia in the whole chain is green oxygen
from ASUs, which can also be extracted from oxygen-saturated air
produced in an electrolysis unit, especially if steam is used as an air
electrode gas instead of air [210]. This technology is still being
researched at the laboratory scale and higher degradation of the air
Fig. 9 shows a Sankey diagram. Research is being carried out at each
of the main stages (hydrogen production, ammonia production, and
energy conversion in cells) in order to improve the efficiency of the
K. Machaj et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926

Fig. 8. Chart of processes of NH3 production and usage in a ship with energy fully provided by renewable sources.

Fig. 9. Sankey diagram of ammonia use as a fuel.

process. The highest losses are in the SOFC system, where electrical
efficiency is assumed at 50% [10], which is higher than typical diesel
genset efficiency. Combining technologies can boost ship power system
efficiency, sending significant savings cascading down the whole chain.
SOC can also boost the efficiency of hydrogen production. As is shown in
Fig. 10, a 6% improvement in hydrogen production efficiency increases
whole chain efficiency by around 0.5%.
If total energy demand is met by wind energy, not including H2, N2,
and NH3 transport, the efficiency of the process will reach around 17.5%
(Fig. 10). It should be noted that the energy demand for ASUs is deter­
mined from the perspective of oxygen production – their primary pur­
pose – whereas nitrogen production power consumption can be higher
[103]. Oxygen from electrolysis and ASUs is a by-product that can be
used in various industries. Table 10 shows energy demand and efficiency
of processes. Table 11 shows the efficiency of processes.
7. Conclusions
The above analysis shows that ammonia can be used as a fuel without
a carbon footprint and has the potential to be an extremely environment-
friendly solution if a comprehensive approach is taken to the economy as
a whole.
The complexity of the process of converting energy from RES to
ammonia requires cooperation among many sectors of industry.

14
K. Machaj et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926

emissions. On the other hand, hydrogen stored in ammonia can be

converted by SOFCs directly to electricity. It is not yet clear which
approach is better – either direct ammonia conversion or application of
additional ammonia crackers before SOFC stack. Both solutions have
advantages and disadvantages, but the most important aspect here is to
minimize the degradation rate of SOFCs and improve the heat integra­
tion of the system. These issues should be investigated through stable
long-term experiments simulating the real load changes on ships.
Another problem is the rules for fuel cell energy production on board
the ship. They are still work-in-progress and there are no standardized
tests for fuel cells as power systems. However, there are rules for ships
being powered with batteries as the main source of electricity, which can
be important in a combined system and will give a faster implementa­
tion of fuel cells on board. Consequently, for enhanced performance and
useful lifetime, the SOFC can be combined with batteries to power the
Fig. 10. Percentage of wind energy stored in ammonia, transported and used as
ship. This solution raises, in turn, other problems related to space and
a fuel for powered the ship.
weight management of such a system. The SOFC system with the same
power is, as roughly estimated by the authors, more than 1.5 times
Table 10 bigger and heavier than a diesel engine. If the SOFC is an energy con­
Energy demand for processes – Deionization industry price (NFOSS), storage verter but batteries are the main power source, then high overcapacity
energy demand calculated based on the private data report [45,46]. must be considered. Several questions related to the applicability of
System Energy demand Unit SOFC fueled by ammonia remain open however there is no doubt that
both the rising cost of CO2 emissions and current prices of ammonia
Deionization 5.75 kWh kgH2O− 1
Air Separation Unit [103] 0.52 kWh kgO−2 1 direct the focus to alternative propulsion systems. The computation of
Ammonia synthesis [72] 9 kWh kgNH−3 1 the Levelized cost of maritime systems has to include both the capital
Storage [131] 1.32⋅10− 6
kWh kgNH−3 1 and operating expenditures. While the earlier remain higher for any type
of fuel cell-based system, the latter can be substantially lower.

Table 11
Efficiency of ammonia conversion subsystems. Declaration of competing interest

System Efficiency, %
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Electrolysis [211] >85.0 interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Ammonia Synthesis [72] 69.0
the work reported in this paper.
SOFC [10] 50.0
Battery [199] 98.0
Ship power system [212] (transformer, switch board, converter, 95.5 Acknowledgements
engine)

The presented work has been partially undertaken in the framework

However, this will be exceedingly difficult, because renewable energy
must be used to power various processes to obtain green ammonia. This
requires profound changes in the economy. The analysis reported in this
paper shows that the efficiency of the entire process – from RES elec­
tricity through to powering a ship using ammonia as a hydrogen carrier
– is estimated at around 18%.
Ammonia can be used to power ships and the technologies required
are already mature. Moreover, ammonia has been transported around
the world by cargo ships for decades. Also, technologies for its handling
are like those used for LPG which can increase ship’s fuel flexibility.
Several critical issues need to be considered when comparing
ammonia and LNG as fuel. First, ammonia needs around 1.5 times more
storage space than LNG. This can significantly reduce cargo space and
increase transport prices. Second, there are no technical contraindica­
tions to using ammonia as a marine fuel. Ammonia is no more hazardous
than LNG concerning the combustion properties and safety limits.
Finally, a significant barrier to the use of ammonia as a fuel may come
from legal regulations in the maritime sector that might be developed in
the future.
Some questions remain unanswered from a power generation point
of view. Theoretically, ammonia can be burnt in diesel engines in single
or dual fuel mode. Experience gained from the development of LPG
storage systems is transferable to handling ammonia, especially liquid
ammonia. Some technologies, including storage tanks, can be used with
both fuels. However, diesel engines would have to be redesigned – owing
to the differences in thermophysical properties between ammonia and
other fuels – and additional solutions introduced to prevent NOX
of the cooperation between Remontowa LNG Systems and WUST, as a
part of the project Optimization of LNG power systems of drives oper­
ating on sea, road and rail transport, financed by NCBR, Poland.
Authors acknowledge the financial support from the Ministry of
Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Poland through the
statutory grant at the Institute of Power Engineering (grant no CPE/001/
2021).
Authors acknowledge Dr. Anna Niemczyk for providing general
editorial feedback on the manuscript.
References
[1] IPCC, The ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate, Intergov Panel Clim
Chang (2019) 1–765.
[2] IRENA, RENEWABLE CAPACITY STATISTICS 2021, 2021.
[3] DNV GL, Maritime forecast to 2050, Energy Transit Outlook 2021 (2019) 118.
[4] IEA, Ammonia Technology Roadmap; towards More Sustainable Nitrogen
Fertilizer Production, Int Energy Agency, 2021, p. 163p.
[5] F. Bird, A. Clarke, P. Davies, E. Surkovic, Ammonia : Fuel and Energy Store, 2020.
[6] IMO MEPC, Fourth IMO Greenhouse Gas Study, 2021.
[7] D.R. MacFarlane, P.V. Cherepanov, J. Choi, B.H.R. Suryanto, R.Y. Hodgetts, J.
M. Bakker, et al., A roadmap to the ammonia economy, Joule 4 (2020)
1186–1205, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.04.004.
[8] M.H. Hasan, T.M.I. Mahlia, M. Mofijur, I.M. Rizwanul Fattah, F. Handayani, H.
C. Ong, et al., A comprehensive review on the recent development of ammonia as
a renewable energy carrier, Energies 14 (2021) 3732, https://doi.org/10.3390/
en14133732.
[9] O. Siddiqui, I. Dincer, A review and comparative assessment of direct ammonia
fuel cells, Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 5 (2018) 568–578, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tsep.2018.02.011.
[10] S.S. Rathore, S. Biswas, D. Fini, A.P. Kulkarni, S. Giddey, Direct ammonia solid-
oxide fuel cells: a review of progress and prospects, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46
(2021) 35365–35384, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.08.092.

15
K. Machaj et al.
[11] H. Al Baroudi, A. Awoyomi, K. Patchigolla, K. Jonnalagadda, E.J. Anthony, A
review of large-scale CO2 shipping and marine emissions management for carbon
capture, utilisation and storage, Appl. Energy 287 (2021), 116510, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116510.
[12] A. Al-Enazi, E.C. Okonkwo, Y. Bicer, T. Al-Ansari, A review of cleaner alternative
fuels for maritime transportation, Energy Rep. 7 (2021) 1962–1985, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.03.036.
[13] A. Romano, Z. Yang, Decarbonisation of shipping: a state of the art survey for
2000–2020, Ocean Coast Manag. 214 (2021), 105936, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2021.105936.
[14] C. Breidenich, D. Magraw, A. Rowley, J.W. Rubin, The Kyoto protocol to the
united Nations framework convention on climate change, Am. J. Int. Law 92
(1998) 315–331, https://doi.org/10.2307/2998044.
[15] L.E. Erickson, G. Brase, Paris agreement on climate change, Reducing Greenh. Gas
Emiss. Improv. Air Qual. (2019) 11–22, https://doi.org/10.1201/
9781351116589-2.
[16] European Commission, Green New Deal. Sol. Power, University of California
Press, 2019, pp. 47–65, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvd1c6zh.7.
[17] A. Haines, P. Scheelbeek, European Green Deal: a major opportunity for health
improvement, Lancet 395 (2020) 1327–1329, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
6736(20)30109-4.
[18] Widuto Agnieszka, Jourde Pernilla, Just Transition Fund, PE 646.180 –
September 2021, Eur Parliam Res Serv, 2020.
[19] European Commission, Just Transition Funding Sources | European Commission,
Eur Comm Website, 2021. Accessed, https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/
priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/finance-and-green-deal/just
-transition-mechanism/just-transition-funding-sources_en#latest. (Accessed 3
November 2021).
[20] United Nations, The johannesburg declaration on sustainable development,
Johaneesbg Plan Implement 11371 (2002) 1–62.
[21] United Nations. 14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine
resources for sustainable development. Accessed 04.10.2021. n.d. https://sdgs.
un.org/goals/goal14.
[22] United Nations, The Ocean Conference | 5–9 June 2017 Marine pollution.:.
Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2017. https://oceanconference.
un.org/callforaction. (Accessed 3 November 2021). Accessed.
[23] United Nations, COP26 the Glasgow Climate Pact, 2021.
[24] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1992, THE
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT TO THE IPCC SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT, 1992.
[25] IPCC-SAR, Climate change 1995: a report of the intergovernmental Panel on
climate change, Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (1995) 4596–4603.
[26] IPCC TAR, IPCC third assessment report (TAR), IPCC (2001) 995.
[27] D. Reay, C. Sabine, P. Smith, G. Hymus, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Fourth Assessment Report. Geneva, Switzerland: Inter-gov- Ernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; UK, 2007,
https://doi.org/10.1038/446727a. Available from: www.ipcc.ch, 2007.
[28] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014 Synthesis
Report, 2015.
[29] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Special Report on the Ocean and
Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, Intergov Panel Clim Chang, 2021. https://
www.ipcc.ch/srocc/. (Accessed 3 November 2021). Accessed.
[30] T.R. Walker, O. Adebambo, M.C. Del Aguila Feijoo, E. Elhaimer, T. Hossain, S.
J. Edwards, et al., Environmental Effects of Marine Transportation. World Seas an
Environ. Eval. Vol. III Ecol. Issues Environ. Impacts, second ed., Elsevier Ltd.,
2018, pp. 505–530, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805052-1.00030-9.
[31] P. Brodie, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL), Commer. Shipp. Handb., 2020, pp. 219–221, https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781315774695-85.
[32] MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTE, RESOLUTION MEPC.176
(58), Revised MARPOL Annex VI, 2010.
[33] MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTE, RESOLUTION MEPC.328
(76), Revised MARPOL Annex VI, 2021.
[35] International Maritime Organization (IMO), List of special areas, emission control
areas and particularly sensitive sea areas (MEPC.1/Circ.778/Rev.3), 2018.
[36] Marine Environment Protection Committee. Study on Effects of the Entry into
Force of the Global 0.5% Fuel Oil Sulphur Content Limit on Human Health. (n.d).
[37] Marine Environment Protection Committee, Assessment of Fuel Oil Availability-
Final Report, MEPC70/INF., 2016.
[38] International Maritime Organization (IMO), IMO Action to Reduce GHG
Emissions from International Shipping, vol. 44, 2019.
[39] MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTE, RESOLUTION MEPC.304
(72), Revised MARPOL Annex VI, 2018.
[40] European Commission, European Union (Sulphur Content of Marine Fuels)
Regulations 2015, 2015.
[41] IRENA, RENEWABLE CAPACITY STATISTICS, 2020. ISBN 978-9. 2020.
[42] WWEA, GLOBAL WIND INSTALLATIONS, 2021. https://library.wwindea.org/g
lobal-statistics/. (Accessed 3 November 2021). Accessed.
[43] IEA, Renewables 2020, 2020. Paris.
[44] K. Machaj, Z. Malecha, R. Lis, M. Chorowski, Mitigation of undesired influence of
micro-PV installations on the Low Voltage network by means of a hybrid storage
system, in: 2021 Int. Conf. Eng. Emerg. Technol., 2021, pp. 1–6, https://doi.org/
10.1109/ICEET53442.2021.9659755.
[45] S. Adamek, P. Pijarski, P. Kacejko, Analysis of voltage conditions in low voltage
networks highly saturated with photovoltaic micro installations, Anal Volt Cond
Low Volt Networks Highly Satur with Photovolt Micro Install 36 (2018) 4–9,
https://doi.org/10.12736/issn.2300-3022.2018301.
16
Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926
[46] A. Singh, T. Frei, N. Chokani, R.S. Abhari, Impact of unplanned power flows in
interconnected transmission systems - case study of Central Eastern European
region, Energy Pol. 91 (2016) 287–303, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2016.01.006.
[47] Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH), Hydrogen Roadmap Europe,
2019, https://doi.org/10.2843/249013.
[48] European Commission, State of the Union: Commission Raises Climate Ambition
and Proposes 55% Cut in Emissions by 2030, IP/20/1599, 2020.
[49] European Commission, State of the Union: Questions & Answers on the 2030
Climate Target Plan, QANDA/20/1, 2020.
[50] IRENA, Green Hydrogen Cost Reduction: Scaling up Electrolysers to Meet the 1.5
C Climate Goal, 2020.
[51] Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, Study on Development of Water
Electrolysis in the EU, 2014. Final report.
[52] TRACTEBEL, Hinico, Engie, STUDY ON EARLY BUSINESS CASES FOR H2IN
ENERGY STORAGE ANDMORE BROADLY POWERTO H2 APPLICATIONS, 2017.
[53] Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, Programme review report,
2017–2018, https://doi.org/10.2843/703121.
[54] P. Millet, S. Grigoriev, Water Electrolysis Technologies. Renew. Hydrog. Technol,
Elsevier, 2013, pp. 19–41, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-56352-1.00002-
7.
[55] G. Voitic, B. Pichler, A. Basile, A. Iulianelli, K. Malli, S. Bock, et al., Hydrogen
Production. Fuel Cells Hydrog, Elsevier, 2018, pp. 215–241, https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-811459-9.00010-4.
[56] Sunfire. PRESS RELEASE SUCCESSFUL TEST OPERATION of the WORLD ’ S
LARGEST HIGH-TEMPERATURE ELECTROLYSIS MODULE Sunfire Reaches Next
Development Milestone and Doubles Capacity of its 2021.
[57] FCH, Roland Berger, Development of Business Cases for Fuel Cells and Hydrogen
Applications for Regions and Cities, 2017.
[58] O. Schmidt, A. Gambhir, I. Staffell, A. Hawkes, J. Nelson, S. Few, Future cost and
performance of water electrolysis: an expert elicitation study, Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 42 (2017) 30470–30492, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2017.10.045.
[59] A. Christensen, Assessment of Hydrogen Production Costs fromElectrolysis:
United States and Europe, 2020.
[60] IRENA, Hydrogen: a Renewable Energy Perspective, 2019.
[61] Hydrogen Europe, Clean Hydrogen Monitor 2021, 2021.
[62] L. Zhou, Progress and problems in hydrogen storage methods, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 9 (2005) 395–408, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2004.05.005.
[63] P. Dimitriou, R. Javaid, A review of ammonia as a compression ignition engine
fuel, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 45 (2020) 7098–7118, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2019.12.209.
[64] M. Al-Breiki, Y. Bicer, Comparative cost assessment of sustainable energy carriers
produced from natural gas accounting for boil-off gas and social cost of carbon,
Energy Rep. 6 (2020) 1897–1909, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.07.013.
[65] F. Baldi, A. Azzi, F. Maréchal, From renewable energy to ship fuel: ammonia as an
energy vector and mean for energy storage, Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 46 (2019)
1747–1752, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818634-3.50292-7.
[66] J. Hansson, S. Brynolf, E. Fridell, M. Lehtveer, The potential role of ammonia as
marine fuel—based on energy systems modeling and multi-criteria decision
analysis, Sustainability 12 (2020) 3265, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083265.
[67] A. Laval, H.T. Hafnia, S.G. Vestas, Ammonfuel-an Industrial View of Ammonia as
a Marine Fuel, 2020.
[68] J. Hansson, S. Månsson, S. Brynolf, M. Grahn, Alternative marine fuels: prospects
based on multi-criteria decision analysis involving Swedish stakeholders, Biomass
Bioenergy 126 (2019) 159–173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2019.05.008.
[69] International Maritime Organization (IMO), UPDATE ON IMO’S WORK TO
ADDRESS GHG EMISSIONS FROM FUEL USED FOR INTERNATIONAL SHIPPIN,
2019.
[70] T.W.P. Smith, J.P. Jalkanen, B.A. Anderson, J.J. Corbett, J. Faber, S. Hanayama,
et al., Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014, 2014.
[71] A.S. DNV, Energy transition outlook 2021 executive summary. A Global and
Regional Forecast to 2050, 2021, p. 40.
[72] K.H.R. Rouwenhorst, A.G.J. Van der Ham, G. Mul, S.R.A. Kersten, Islanded
ammonia power systems: technology review & conceptual process design, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 114 (2019), 109339, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2019.109339.
[73] US Department of Energy, SUSTAINABLE AMMONIA SYNTHESIS - Exploring the
Scientific Challenges Associated with Discovering Alternative, Sustainable
Processes for Ammonia Production, 2016.
[74] NationMaster, Top Countries for Ammonia Production, n.d, https://www.nation
master.com/nmx/ranking/ammonia-production. (Accessed 7 October 2021).
Accessed.
[75] L. Fernández, Ammonia Annual Production Capacity Globally 2030, Statista,
2021. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1065865/ammonia-production-capac
ity-globally/. (Accessed 7 October 2021). Accessed.
[76] A. Afif, N. Radenahmad, Q. Cheok, S. Shams, J.H. Kim, A.K. Azad, Ammonia-fed
fuel cells: a comprehensive review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60 (2016)
822–835, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.120.
[77] World Integrate Trade Solution, Ammonia anhydrous exports by country 2019, n.
d, https://wits.worldbank.
org/trade/comtrade/en/country/ALL/year/2019/tradeflow/Exports/
partner/WLD/product/281410#L1. (Accessed 7 October 2021). Accessed.
[78] World Integrate Trade Solution, Ammonia anhydrous imports by country 2019, n.
d, https://wits.worldbank.org/trade/comtrade/en/country/ALL/year/2019/tr
K. Machaj et al.
adeflow/Imports/partner/WLD/product/281410. (Accessed 7 October 2021).
Accessed.
[79] J. Lundtang, General Rights Safety Assessment of Ammonia as a Transport Fuel,
vol. 1504, 2017.
[85] E.R. Morgan, J.F. Manwell, J.G. McGowan, Sustainable ammonia production
from U.S. Offshore wind farms: a techno-economic review, ACS Sustain. Chem.
Eng. 5 (2017) 9554–9567, https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b02070.
[86] U Bin Shahid, Y. Bicer, S. Ahzi, A. Abdala, Thermodynamic assessment of an
integrated renewable energy multigeneration system including ammonia as
hydrogen carrier and phase change material energy storage, Energy Convers.
Manag. 198 (2019), 111809, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111809.
[87] M. Aziz, A.T. Wijayanta, A.B.D. Nandiyanto, Ammonia as effective hydrogen
storage: a review on production, storage and utilization, Energies 13 (2020) 3062,
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13123062.
[88] R.M. Nayak-Luke, R. Bañares-Alcántara, Long-term energy storage: what is the
need and is ammonia a solution?, in: M.R. Eden, Ierapetritou MG, Towler GPBT-
CACE (Eds.), 13 Int. Symp. Process Syst. Eng. (PSE 2018), vol. 44 Elsevier, 2018,
pp. 1843–1848, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64241-7.50302-5.
[89] A. Klerke, C.H. Christensen, J.K. Nørskov, T. Vegge, Ammonia for hydrogen
storage: challenges and opportunities, J. Mater. Chem. 18 (2008) 2304, https://
doi.org/10.1039/b720020j.
[90] M.J. Palys, P. Daoutidis, Using hydrogen and ammonia for renewable energy
storage: a geographically comprehensive techno-economic study, Comput. Chem.
Eng. 136 (2020), 106785, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compchemeng.2020.106785.
[91] H. Barthélémy, Hydrogen storage – industrial prospectives, Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 37 (2012) 17364–17372, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2012.04.121.
[92] A. Züttel, Materials for hydrogen storage, Mater. Today 6 (2003) 24–33, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(03)00922-2.
[93] K.E. Lamb, M.D. Dolan, D.F. Kennedy, Ammonia for hydrogen storage; A review
of catalytic ammonia decomposition and hydrogen separation and purification,
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 (2019) 3580–3593, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2018.12.024.
[94] Y. Demirel, Technoeconomics and sustainability of renewable methanol and
ammonia productions using wind power-based hydrogen, J. Adv. Chem. Eng. 5
(2015), https://doi.org/10.4172/2090-4568.1000128.
[95] S. Parvathikar, I. Luz, M. Carpenter, T. Bellamy, K. Amato, J. Carpenter, et al.,
Solvothermal synthesis of MOF-derived supported Ru nanocatalysts for low-
temperature ammonia synthesis, Catal. Today 387 (2022) 23–27, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cattod.2021.09.016.
[96] R. Manjunatha, A. Schechter, Electrochemical synthesis of ammonia using
ruthenium–platinum alloy at ambient pressure and low temperature,
Electrochem. Commun. 90 (2018) 96–100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
elecom.2018.04.008.
[97] J. Ni, Z. Tan, Q. Sai, J. Zhu, X. Wang, B. Lin, et al., Target-oriented confinement of
Ru-Co nanoparticles inside N-doped carbon spheres via a benzoic acid guided
process for high-efficient low-temperature ammonia synthesis, J. Energy Chem.
57 (2021) 140–146, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jechem.2020.08.067.
[98] X. Peng, H.-X. Liu, Y. Zhang, Z.-Q. Huang, L. Yang, Y. Jiang, et al., Highly efficient
ammonia synthesis at low temperature over a Ru–Co catalyst with dual
atomically dispersed active centers, Chem. Sci. 12 (2021) 7125–7137, https://
doi.org/10.1039/D1SC00304F.
[99] S. Giddey, S.P.S. Badwal, A. Kulkarni, Review of electrochemical ammonia
production technologies and materials, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 38 (2013)
14576–14594, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.09.054.
[100] Y. Liu, Y. Xue, L. Hui, H. Yu, Y. Fang, F. He, et al., Porous graphdiyne loading
CoOx quantum dots for fixation nitrogen reaction, Nano Energy 89 (2021),
106333, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2021.106333.
[101] D.A. Kurtz, Turning up the heat on photo-catalytic ammonia production, Joule 5
(2021) 762–764, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2021.03.026.
[102] T. Brown, Ammonia technology portfolio: optimize for energy efficiency and
carbon efficiency – AMMONIA INDUSTRY, Ammon Ind (2018).
[103] X. He, Y. Liu, A. Rehman, L. Wang, A novel air separation unit with energy
storage and generation and its energy efficiency and economy analysis, Appl.
Energy 281 (2021), 115976, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115976.
[104] C. Wang, N. Akkurt, X. Zhang, Y. Luo, X. She, Techno-economic analyses of
multi-functional liquid air energy storage for power generation, oxygen
production and heating, Appl. Energy 275 (2020), 115392, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115392.
[105] M.D. Mukelabai, J.M. Gillard, K. Patchigolla, A novel integration of a green
power-to-ammonia to power system: reversible solid oxide fuel cell for hydrogen
and power production coupled with an ammonia synthesis unit, Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 46 (2021) 18546–18556, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2021.02.218.
[106] E.R. Morgan, Techno-economic Feasibility Study of Ammonia Plants Powered by
Offshore Wind, 2013.
[107] J. Ikäheimo, J. Kiviluoma, R. Weiss, H. Holttinen, Power-to-ammonia in future
North European 100 % renewable power and heat system, Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 43 (2018) 17295–17308, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2018.06.121.
[108] Daily carbon prices, Accessed: https://ember-climate.org/data/carbon-price-vie
wer/. (Accessed 10 December 2021). n.d.
[109] UNCTAD, Review of Maritime Transport 2021, 2021.
17
Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926
[110] Unctadstat, Ships built by country of building, annual, n.d, https://unctadstat.un
ctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=equals;89493. (Accessed 3
November 2021). Accessed.
[111] M. Traut, A. Larkin, K. Anderson, C. McGlade, M. Sharmina, T. Smith, CO 2
abatement goals for international shipping, Clim. Pol. 18 (2018) 1066–1075,
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1461059.
[112] DNV AS, Maritime forecast to 2050, Energy Transition Outlook 2021 (2021) 118.
[113] C. Raucci, J.-M. Bonello, S. Suarez De La Fuente, T. Smith, K. Sogaard, Aggregate
Investment for the Decarbonisation of the Shipping Industry, UMAS, 2020.
[114] S. Horvath, M. Fasihi, C. Breyer, Techno-economic analysis of a decarbonized
shipping sector: technology suggestions for a fleet in 2030 and 2040, Energy
Convers. Manag. 164 (2018) 230–241, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.02.098.
[115] P. Balcombe, J. Brierley, C. Lewis, L. Skatvedt, J. Speirs, A. Hawkes, et al., How to
decarbonise international shipping: options for fuels, technologies and policies,
Energy Convers. Manag. 182 (2019) 72–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.12.080.
[116] G. Mallouppas, E.A. Yfantis, Decarbonization in shipping industry: a review of
research, technology development, and innovation proposals, J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 9
(2021) 415, https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9040415.
[117] P. Gilbert, C. Walsh, M. Traut, U. Kesieme, K. Pazouki, A. Murphy, Assessment of
full life-cycle air emissions of alternative shipping fuels, J. Clean. Prod. 172
(2018) 855–866, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.165.
[118] A. Ölçer, F. Ballini, The development of a decision making framework for
evaluating the trade-offsolutions of cleaner seaborne transportation, Transport.
Res. Transport Environ. 37 (2015) 150–170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2015.04.023.
[119] J. Ren, M. Lützen, Selection of sustainable alternative energy source for shipping:
multi-criteria decision making under incomplete information, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 74 (2017) 1003–1019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.057.
[120] Y. Zhao, B.P. Setzler, J. Wang, J. Nash, T. Wang, B. Xu, et al., An efficient direct
ammonia fuel cell for affordable carbon-neutral transportation, Joule 3 (2019)
2472–2484, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.07.005.
[121] C. Deniz, B. Zincir, Environmental and economical assessment of alternative
marine fuels, J. Clean. Prod. 113 (2016) 438–449, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.11.089.
[122] J. Ren, H. Liang, Measuring the sustainability of marine fuels: a fuzzy group
multi-criteria decision making approach, Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 54
(2017) 12–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.05.004.
[123] Hydrogen Europe, UMAS, YARA, EXMAR, Ammonia as a Fuel for Shipping:
Challanges and Opportunities, 2020.
[124] M. Wang, W. Kong, R. Marten, X.-C. He, D. Chen, J. Pfeifer, et al., Rapid growth of
new atmospheric particles by nitric acid and ammonia condensation, Nature 581
(2020) 184–189, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2270-4.
[125] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Environmental Protection
Agency. Database of Hazardous Materials, n.d, https://cameochemicals.noaa.go
v/. (Accessed 7 November 2021). Accessed.
[126] T. Ayvalı, S.C. Edman Tsang, T. Van Vrijaldenhoven, The position of ammonia in
decarbonising maritime industry: an overview and perspectives: Part II : costs,
safety and environmental performance and the future prospects for ammonia in
shipping, Johnson Matthey Technol Rev 65 (2021) 291–300, https://doi.org/
10.1595/205651321X16127941688787.
[127] N. Ash, T. Scarbrough, Sailing on Solar. Could Green Ammonia Decarbonise
International Shipping?, vol. 53, 2019.
[128] USEPA, Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater
2013, vol. 13, United States Environ Prot Agency, 2013, pp. 1–255.
[129] B.J. Wicks, R. Joensen, Q. Tang, D.J. Randall, Swimming and ammonia toxicity in
salmonids: the effect of sub lethal ammonia exposure on the swimming
performance of coho salmon and the acute toxicity of ammonia in swimming and
resting rainbow trout, Aquat. Toxicol. 59 (2002) 55–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0166-445x(01)00236-3.
[130] S.M. Levit, A literature review of effects of amonia on fish, Nat. Conserv. (2010).
[131] T. Banaszkiewicz, M. Chorowski, W. Gizicki, A. Jedrusyna, J. Kielar, Z. Malecha,
et al., Liquefied natural gas in mobile applications—opportunities and challenges,
Energies 13 (2020) 5673, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13215673.
[132] Maritime Safety Committee, Development of International Code of Safety for
Ships Using Gases or Other Low-Flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code), 2014.
[133] International Maritime Organization, in: GC Code: International Code for the
Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, 2016,
2016th ed, International Maritime Organization, 2016 (eBook) (KA104E).
[134] S.T.S. Teels, Materials for Cryogenic Service: Engineering Properties of Austenitic
Stainless Steels, Nickel Dev Inst, 1974.
[135] NJ Den Uijl, L.J. Carless, Advanced metal-forming technologies for automotive
applications, in: JBT-AM. in AE. Rowe (Ed.), Adv. Mater. Automot. Eng., Elsevier,
2012, pp. 28–56, https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857095466.28.
[136] Industrial Specialities Mfg, 316L Stainless Steel Chemical Compatibility, 2017.
https://marketing.industrialspec.com/acton/attachment/30397/f-003a/
1/-/-/-/-/316l-stainless-steel-chemical-compatibility-from-ism.pdf. (Accessed 7
November 2021). Accessed.
[137] Selection of stainless steel for handling ammonia NH3, n.d, https://tubingchina.
com/Selection-of-Stainless-Steel-for-Handling-Ammonia-NH3.htm. (Accessed 7
November 2020). Accessed.
[138] Masteel UK Ltd, Type 316 stainless steel, n.d, https://masteel.co.uk/type
-316-stainless-steel/. (Accessed 7 November 2020). Accessed.
[139] A. Ul-Hamid, H. Saricimen, A. Quddus, A.I. Mohammed, L.M. Al-Hems, Corrosion
study of SS304 and SS316 alloys in atmospheric, underground and seawater
K. Machaj et al.
splash zone in the Arabian Gulf, Corrosion Eng. Sci. Technol. 52 (2017) 134–140,
https://doi.org/10.1080/1478422X.2016.1213974.
[140] DuPont TM Kalrez ® 9500, n.d, https://www.dupont.com/products/kalrez.html.
(Accessed 7 November 2021). Accessed.
[141] O-ring materials compatible with ammonia, Anhydrous n.d, https://www.efunda.
com/designstandards/oring/oring_chemical.cfm?SM=none&SC=Ammonia%2C
Anhydrous. (Accessed 5 July 2021). accessed.
[142] W. Wang, J.M. Herreros, A. Tsolakis, A.P.E. York, Ammonia as hydrogen carrier
for transportation; investigation of the ammonia exhaust gas fuel reforming, Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy 38 (2013) 9907–9917, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2013.05.144.
[143] A. Valera-Medina, H. Xiao, M. Owen-Jones, W.I.F. David, P.J. Bowen, Ammonia
for power, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 69 (2018) 63–102, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.pecs.2018.07.001.
[144] E. Antolini, Direct propane fuel cells, Fuel 315 (2022), 123152, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123152.
[145] Jarosław Poliński, J. Skrzypacz, Wyznaczanie Czasu Utrzymania Czynnika W
Zamkniętym Zbiorniku Kriogenicznym Systemu Transportu Kolejowego, 2019.
[146] A. Aijjou, L. Bahatti, A. Raihani, Study on container ship energy consumption,
WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 237 (2019) 25–36, https://doi.org/10.2495/
ESUS190031.
[147] E.J. Davis, M.M. David, Two-phase gas-liquid convection heat transfer, A
Correlation. Ind Eng Chem Fundam 3 (1964) 111–118, https://doi.org/10.1021/
i160010a005.
[148] H. Bostanci, D.P. Rini, J.P. Kizito, V. Singh, S. Seal, L.C. Chow, High heat flux
spray cooling with ammonia: investigation of enhanced surfaces for CHF, Int. J.
Heat Mass Tran. 55 (2012) 3849–3856, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheatmasstransfer.2012.03.040.
[149] D.B. Spalding, Handbook of heat transfer, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 18 (1975) 1221,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0017-9310(75)90148-9.
[150] F. Táboas, M. Vallès, M. Bourouis, A. Coronas, Pool boiling of ammonia/water
and its pure components: comparison of experimental data in the literature with
the predictions of standard correlations, Int. J. Refrig. 30 (2007) 778–788,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2006.12.009.
[151] S. Kotthoff, D. Gorenflo, Pool boiling heat transfer to hydrocarbons and ammonia:
a state-of-the-art review, Int. J. Refrig. 31 (2008) 573–602, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2008.03.008.
[152] J. Fernández-Seara, Á.Á. Pardiñas, R. Diz, Heat transfer enhancement of ammonia
pool boiling with an integral-fin tube, Int. J. Refrig. 69 (2016) 175–185, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2016.05.012.
[153] Wärtsilä 34DF (n.d).
[154] Wärtsilä 34DF © Copyright by WÄRTSILÄ FINLAND. n.d.
[155] S. Shaffer, Development Update on Delphi’s Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Systems, 2007.
San Antonio.
[156] A. Boretti, Novel dual fuel diesel-ammonia combustion system in advanced TDI
engines, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42 (2017) 7071–7076, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2016.11.208.
[157] Y. Woo, J.Y. Jang, Y.J. Lee, J.N. Kim, Experimental Setups. Distrib. Control Filter.
Ind. Syst, Des Moines: Institution of Engineering and Technology, 2014,
pp. 363–400, https://doi.org/10.1049/PBCE088E_ch8.
[158] Kyocera, Energy conversion devices, n.d, https://global.kyocera.com/prdct/ecd/
sofc/index.html. (Accessed 7 November 2021). Accessed.
[159] Sunfire, SICHERE VERSORGUNG MIT SAUBERER ENERGIE, 2021.
[160] Y. Zhao, R. Jing, Z. Zhang, Feasibility of solid oxide fuel cell stationary
applications in China’s building sector and relevant progress, in: M.B.T.-
D. Sharifzadeh, S.O.F.C. O of (Eds.), Des. Oper. Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, Elsevier,
2020, pp. 359–393, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815253-9.00013-6.
[161] M. Mehrpooya, M. Sadeghzadeh, A. Rahimi, M. Pouriman, Technical performance
analysis of a combined cooling heating and power (CCHP) system based on solid
oxide fuel cell (SOFC) technology – a building application, Energy Convers.
Manag. 198 (2019), 111767, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.06.078.
[162] P. Deepika, M.N. Kumar, P. Sivasankar, A review : bloom box – a solid oxide fuel
cell, Int Res J Eng Technol 5 (2018) 1562–1567.
[163] The Netherlands Enterprise Agency, Hydrogen Economy Development in Korea,
vols. 1–10, 2020.
[164] G. Brus, P.F. Raczkowski, M. Kishimoto, H. Iwai, J.S. Szmyd, A microstructure-
oriented mathematical model of a direct internal reforming solid oxide fuel cell,
Energy Convers. Manag. 213 (2020), 112826, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2020.112826.
[165] T. Okanishi, K. Okura, A. Srifa, H. Muroyama, T. Matsui, M. Kishimoto, et al.,
Comparative study of ammonia-fueled solid oxide fuel cell systems, Fuel Cell. 17
(2017) 383–390, https://doi.org/10.1002/fuce.201600165.
[166] A. Hagen, H. Langnickel, X. Sun, Operation of solid oxide fuel cells with
alternative hydrogen carriers, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 (2019) 18382–18392,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.05.065.
[167] M. Kishimoto, H. Muroyama, S. Suzuki, M. Saito, T. Koide, Y. Takahashi, et al.,
Development of 1 kW-class Ammonia-fueled solid oxide fuel cell stack, Fuel Cell.
20 (2020) 80–88, https://doi.org/10.1002/fuce.201900131.
[168] Y. Wang, Y. Gu, H. Zhang, J. Yang, J. Wang, W. Guan, et al., Efficient and durable
ammonia power generation by symmetric flat-tube solid oxide fuel cells, Appl.
Energy 270 (2020), 115185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115185.
[169] A. Fuerte, R.X. Valenzuela, M.J. Escudero, L. Daza, Ammonia as efficient fuel for
SOFC, J. Power Sources 192 (2009) 170–174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2008.11.037.
18
Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926
[170] E. Baniasadi, I. Dincer, Energy and exergy analyses of a combined ammonia-fed
solid oxide fuel cell system for vehicular applications, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 36
(2011) 11128–11136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.04.234.
[171] G. Cinti, U. Desideri, D. Penchini, G. Discepoli, Experimental analysis of SOFC
fuelled by ammonia, Fuel Cell. 14 (2014) 221–230, https://doi.org/10.1002/
fuce.201300276.
[172] Y.T. Hung, S.S. Shy, A pressurized ammonia-fed planar anode-supported solid
oxide fuel cell at 1–5 atm and 750–850◦ C and its loaded short stability test, Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 45 (2020) 27597–27610, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2020.07.064.
[173] N. Maffei, L. Pelletier, J. Charland, A. Mcfarlan, An intermediate temperature
direct ammonia fuel cell using a proton conducting electrolyte, J. Power Sources
140 (2005) 264–267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2004.08.020.
[174] N. Maffei, L. Pelletier, A. McFarlan, A high performance direct ammonia fuel cell
using a mixed ionic and electronic conducting anode, J. Power Sources 175
(2008) 221–225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.09.040.
[175] L. Zhang, W. Yang, Direct ammonia solid oxide fuel cell based on thin proton-
conducting electrolyte, J. Power Sources 179 (2008) 92–95, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.12.061.
[176] O. Siddiqui, H. Ishaq, I. Dincer, Experimental investigation of improvement
capability of ammonia fuel cell performance with addition of hydrogen, Energy
Convers. Manag. 205 (2020), 112372, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2019.112372.
[177] G. Cinti, G. Discepoli, E. Sisani, U. Desideri, SOFC operating with ammonia: stack
test and system analysis, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41 (2016) 13583–13590,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.06.070.
[178] M. Kishimoto, N. Furukawa, T. Kume, H. Iwai, H. Yoshida, Formulation of
ammonia decomposition rate in Ni-YSZ anode of solid oxide fuel cells, Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 42 (2017) 2370–2380, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2016.11.183.
[179] A.F.S. Molouk, T. Okanishi, H. Muroyama, T. Matsui, K. Eguchi, Electrochemical
and catalytic behaviors of Ni–YSZ anode for the direct utilization of ammonia fuel
in solid oxide fuel cells, J. Electrochem. Soc. 162 (2015) F1268–F1274, https://
doi.org/10.1149/2.1011510jes.
[180] K. Miyazaki, T. Okanishi, H. Muroyama, T. Matsui, K. Eguchi, Development of
Ni–Ba(Zr,Y)O3 cermet anodes for direct ammonia-fueled solid oxide fuel cells, J.
Power Sources 365 (2017) 148–154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2017.08.085.
[181] S.S. Shy, Y.T. Hung, Z.H. Chou, Z.L. Bong, J.J. Jhao, Pressurized ammonia and
syngas planar anode-supported solid oxide fuel cells and their performance
stability test, ECS Trans. 91 (2019) 745–752, https://doi.org/10.1149/
09101.0745ecst.
[182] Z. Wan, Y. Tao, J. Shao, Y. Zhang, H. You, Ammonia as an effective hydrogen
carrier and a clean fuel for solid oxide fuel cells, Energy Convers. Manag. 228
(2021), 113729, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113729.
[183] A.F.S. Molouk, J. Yang, T. Okanishi, H. Muroyama, T. Matsui, K. Eguchi,
Comparative study on ammonia oxidation over Ni-based cermet anodes for solid
oxide fuel cells, J. Power Sources 305 (2016) 72–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2015.11.085.
[184] K. Okura, K. Miyazaki, H. Muroyama, T. Matsui, K. Eguchi, Ammonia
decomposition over Ni catalysts supported on perovskite-type oxides for the on-
site generation of hydrogen, RSC Adv. 8 (2018) 32102–32110, https://doi.org/
10.1039/C8RA06100A.
[185] G. Cinti, L. Barelli, G. Bidini, The Use of Ammonia as a Fuel for Transport:
Integration with Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, 2019, 020048, https://doi.org/10.1063/
1.5138781.
[186] A. Wojcik, H. Middleton, I. Damopoulos, J. Van herle, Ammonia as a fuel in solid
oxide fuel cells, J. Power Sources 118 (2003) 342–348, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0378-7753(03)00083-1.
[187] Q. Ma, R. Peng, L. Tian, G. Meng, Direct utilization of ammonia in intermediate-
temperature solid oxide fuel cells, Electrochem. Commun. 8 (2006) 1791–1795,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elecom.2006.08.012.
[188] Y. Yi, A. Rao, J. Brouwer, S. Samuelsen, Ammonia as a contaminant in the
performance of an integrated SOFC reformer system, in: Proc 4th Int ASME Conf
Fuel Cell Sci Eng Technol FUELCELL2006 2006, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1115/
fuelcell2006-97037, 0–13.
[189] N.J.J. Dekker, G. Rietveld, Highly efficient conversion of ammonia in electricity
by solid oxide fuel cells, J. Fuel Cell Sci. Technol. 3 (2006) 499–502, https://doi.
org/10.1115/1.2349536.
[190] D.N.V. Rules, For Classification of Ships - July 2021 Edition, 2021. https://www.
dnv.com/news/rules-for-classification-of-ships-july-2021-edition-203529.
(Accessed 18 July 2022). accessed.
[191] G. Brunaccini, F. Sergi, D. Aloisio, M. Ferraro, M. Blesznowski, J. Kupecki, et al.,
Modeling of a SOFC-HT battery hybrid system for optimal design of off-grid base
transceiver station, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42 (2017) 27962–27978, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.09.062.
[192] J. Kupecki, K. Motylinski, A. Zurawska, M. Kosiorek, L. Ajdys, Numerical analysis
of an SOFC stack under loss of oxidant related fault conditions using a dynamic
non-adiabatic model, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 (2019) 21148–21161, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.04.029.
[193] J. Kupecki, J. Jewulski, J. Milewski, Multi-Level Mathematical Modeling of Solid
Oxide Fuel Cells, Clean Energy Better Environ., InTech, 2012, https://doi.org/
10.5772/50724.
[194] G. D’Andrea, M. Gandiglio, A. Lanzini, M. Santarelli, Dynamic model with
experimental validation of a biogas-fed SOFC plant, Energy Convers. Manag. 135
(2017) 21–34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.12.063.
K. Machaj et al.
[195] F. Sergi, M. Ferraro, K. Motylinski, N. Zanon, J. Kupecki, Use of NaNiCl battery for
mitigation of SOFC stack cycling in base-load telecommunication power system -
a preliminary evaluation, J Power Technol 96 (2016) 63–71.
[196] S.A. Prs, Część VIII – Urządzenia Elektryczne I Systemy Sterowania – Styczeń
2021, 2021.
[197] Wärtsilä Corporation, Wärtsilä 31SG Product Guide, 2019, p. 132.
[198] Wärtsilä Corporation, BUILD Meeting and exceeding the future requirements of
the marine industry, n.d, https://www.wartsila.com/marine/build. (Accessed 1
November 2021). Accessed.
[199] P.H.A. Barra, W.C. de Carvalho, T.S. Menezes, R.A.S. Fernandes, D.V. Coury, A
review on wind power smoothing using high-power energy storage systems,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 137 (2021), 110455, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2020.110455.
[200] S. Campanari, L. Mastropasqua, M. Gazzani, P. Chiesa, M.C. Romano, Predicting
the ultimate potential of natural gas SOFC power cycles with CO2 capture – Part
A: methodology and reference cases, J. Power Sources 324 (2016) 598–614,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.05.104.
[201] L. van Biert, T. Woudstra, M. Godjevac, K. Visser, P.V. Aravind, A thermodynamic
comparison of solid oxide fuel cell-combined cycles, J. Power Sources 397 (2018)
382–396, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.07.035.
[202] H. Sapra, J. Stam, J. Reurings, L. van Biert, W. van Sluijs, P. de Vos, et al.,
Integration of solid oxide fuel cell and internal combustion engine for maritime
applications, Appl. Energy 281 (2021), 115854, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2020.115854.
[203] M.D.A. Al-Falahi, T. Tarasiuk, S.G. Jayasinghe, Z. Jin, H. Enshaei, J.M. Guerrero,
Ac ship microgrids: control and power management optimization, Energies 11
(2018) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.3390/en11061458.
19
Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100926
[204] A. Haseltalab, R.R. Negenborn, Model predictive maneuvering control and energy
management for all-electric autonomous ships, Appl. Energy 251 (2019), 113308,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113308.
[205] K. Yigit, B. Acarkan, A new electrical energy management approach for ships
using mixed energy sources to ensure sustainable port cities, Sustain. Cities Soc.
40 (2018) 126–135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.04.004.
[206] A. Haseltalab, L. van Biert, H. Sapra, B. Mestemaker, R.R. Negenborn, Component
sizing and energy management for SOFC-based ship power systems, Energy
Convers. Manag. 245 (2021), 114625, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2021.114625.
[207] A. Kalosh, In a World First, MSC Europa to Get LNG-Powered Fuel Cell, 2019.
Avaliable, https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/featured/world-first-msc-europa-ge
t-lng-powered-fuel-cell. (Accessed 1 November 2021).
[208] European Commission, ShipFC Piloting Multi MW Ammonia Ship Fuel Cells,
2020.
[209] Kisen Kaisha Kawasaki, Kick off “Joint Study” Framework for Studying Ammonia
as an Alternative Marine Fuel, 2021.
[210] L. Barelli, G. Bidini, G. Cinti, Steam as sweep gas in SOE oxygen electrode, J.
Energy Storage 20 (2018) 190–195, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2018.09.009.
[211] K. Motylinski, M. Wierzbicki, J. Kupecki, S. Jagielski, Investigation of off-design
characteristics of solid oxide electrolyser (SOE) operating in endothermic
conditions, Renew. Energy 170 (2021) 277–285, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2021.01.097.
[212] A.K. Ådnanes, Abb 2003-04-22, 2003.