Potential Alternative Fuels for Shipping Decarbonisation

School of Mathematics, Computer Science and
Engineering
Potential Alternative Fuels for Shipping

Decarbonisation
by
Ioannis Grivas
A Dissertation Submitted
In Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MSc. in Maritime Operations and Management
Supervisor: Professor John Carlton
27 May 2022
Project Title: Potential Alternative Fuels for Shipping Decarbonisation
Student: Ioannis Grivas
Supervisor: Prof. John Carlton
Submission Date: 27th May 2022
Abstract
Sea transportation is the pillar of global trade. The vessels burn fossils fuels to
operate and emit hazardous gases to the environment, known as greenhouse
gases. International Maritime Organisation introduced some goal-based
standards to decrease them by 2050. These include design and operational
aspects able to contribute to the air emissions reduction. Nevertheless, fuel
choice is the dominant factor that can increase the vessels' decarbonisation
contribution.
This project examines alternative fuels options and their feasibility in

decarbonising the shipping industry. Initially, it analyses the issues caused by
the utilisation of conventional fuels and outlines the main drivers to mitigate
their use. Next, it presents a detailed evaluation of the multiple aspects of the
three chosen alternative fuels. Moreover, it compares the environmental
performance of alternative fuels to those of conventional fuels. Likewise, it
evaluates the status of shipping and the challenges that alternative fuels face.
Embodying a questionnaire delivered to different maritime professionals, this

study tries to deepen the investigation on the topic. Discussion on the literature
and maritime professional views enable more objective findings. Research
findings show shipping industry has variety and complexity. Hence,
decarbonisation requires a multifaceted approach, adjustable to the evolving
demands.
Overall, it concludes that financial aid to shipowners combined with carbon

pricing schemes and targeted regulations will accelerate the shift to alternative
fuels. Finally, fuel flexibility and cooperation of stakeholders are the keys to
shaping a sustainable future with a cleaner shipping industry.
i
Acknowledgments
Initially, I would like to thank my supervisor Professor John Carlton for all the support
on this project. His constant guidance and suggestions helped me to cope with the
increased demands.
In addition, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support throughout the
programme.
I would also like to thank Panevritniki Enosi and especially Mr. Kostas Papadopoulos
for their support through the scholarship.
Finally, warm thanks to the participants of this research for your valuable feedback
and interest.
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................. ii
List of figures ......................................................................................................... vi
List of tables ......................................................................................................... vii
Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................... viii
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Aim of the Project ........................................................................................... 2
1.2 Research Limitations ...................................................................................... 2
1.3 Literature Review ........................................................................................... 2
1.5 Outline............................................................................................................ 3
2. Air emissions in Shipping and Reduction Incentives ..................................... 5
2.1 Air Emissions from the Burning of Conventional Fuels ................................... 5
2.1.1 Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) ....................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Sulphur Oxides (SOX) ........................................................................ 5
2.1.3 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) ........................................................................ 6
2.1.4 Particulate Matters (PMs) .................................................................. 6
2.2 Incentives to Reduce Air Emissions in Shipping ............................................. 7
2.2.1 Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) .............................................. 7
2.2.2 Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) ..................................... 8
2.2.3 Carbon Intensity Index (CII) ............................................................... 8
2.2.4 Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP).......................... 8
2.2.5 Data Collection System (DCS) ........................................................... 9
3. Three Alternative Fuels ....................................................................................10
3.1 Liquified Natural Gas (CH4) ...........................................................................10
3.1.1 Properties and Characteristics .........................................................10
3.1.2 Production and storage infrastructures .............................................12
3.1.3 Internal Combustion Engines ...........................................................14
3.1.4 Fuel Cells .........................................................................................16
3.1.5 Cost and Availability .........................................................................17
3.1.6 Safety Considerations ......................................................................19
3.2 Ammonia (NH3) .............................................................................................20
iii
3.2.2 Production and Storage Infrastructures ............................................21
3.2.4 Fuel Cells .........................................................................................26
3.3 Hydrogen (H2) ...............................................................................................30
3.3.2 Production and Storage Infrastructures ............................................31
3.2.4 Fuel Cells .........................................................................................35
3.3.5 From LNG to Hydrogen ....................................................................36
4. Environmental Impact of Alternative Fuels .....................................................41
4.1 Environmental Impact of LNG........................................................................41
4.2 Environmental Impact of Ammonia ................................................................42
4.3 Environmental Impact of Hydrogen ...............................................................43
5. Current State, Challenges, and Future Perspectives .....................................45
5.1 Ships Running on Alternative Fuels ...............................................................45
5.1.1 LNG Fuelled Ships ..........................................................................45
5.1.2 Ammonia Fuelled Ships ...................................................................45
5.1.3 Hydrogen Fuelled Ships ..................................................................45
5.2 Challenges and Future Perspectives .............................................................46
5.2.1 Fuel Volume Versus Cargo Volume .................................................46
5.2.2 Fuel Supply in Tramp and Liner Trade .............................................48
5.2.3 Regulation and Legislation Gaps......................................................49
5.2.4 Future Perspectives .........................................................................49
6. Research Methods ............................................................................................51
6.1 Data Collection ..............................................................................................51
6.2 Questionnaire ................................................................................................51
7. Findings and Discussion..................................................................................53
7.1 Findings of professionals’ responses .............................................................53
7.2 Discussion .....................................................................................................57
8. Conclusions ......................................................................................................60
9. Recommendations ............................................................................................62
iv
10. References ......................................................................................................63
11. Appendices .....................................................................................................75
Appendix A: Tank options for storage LNG onboard ...........................................75
Appendix B: Summary of fuel cell Technologies ..................................................76
Appendix C: Summary of ammonia projects globally ...........................................77
Appendix D: Ammonia Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL) .......................78
Appendix E: Hydrogen colours depending on the production type .......................79
Appendix F: Summary of hydrogen projects globally ...........................................80
Appendix G: Questionnaire .................................................................................81
v
List of figures
Figure 1: Natural Gas Composition .........................................................................10

Figure 2: Illustration of an independent prismatic type B LNG tank .........................13
Figure 3: Generic view of a membrane tank............................................................14
Figure 4: Components to be modified: ME-GI compared to an ME engine ..............15
Figure 5: 250 kW Generator module of Rolls-Royce Fuel Cell Systems..................17
Figure 6: Expected fuel prices.................................................................................18
Figure 7: Worldwide growth in LNG ........................................................................19
Figure 8: Illustration of green ammonia production .................................................23
Figure 9: Main components of NH3 supply system ..................................................26
Figure 10: Sketch of SOFC fuelled by ammonia and oxygen ..................................27
Figure 11: Comparison of Costs and CO2 emissions per ton for the three types of
ammonia .................................................................................................................28
Figure 12: Ammonia terminals across the world .....................................................29
Figure 13: Share of various sources in produced hydrogen ....................................32
Figure 14: Electrolysis and Steam reforming with capture and storage of CO2........33
Figure 15: Dual Fuel H2-Diesel Co-combustion Process .........................................35
Figure 16: Typical Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell ......................................36
Figure 17: Storage of pressurised and cooled H2 in a concentric tank.....................37
Figure 18: Forecast global levels cost of hydrogen production from large projects 38
Figure 19: Announced large-scale hydrogen projects, by type, October 2021 .........39
Figure 20: Emission comparison by fuel type ..........................................................41
Figure 21: Fuels’ volumetric and gravimetric energy densities ................................46
Figure 22: IMO’s initial GHG strategy feasibility ......................................................53
Figure 23: Alternative fuel choice ............................................................................54
Figure 24: Maximum fuel storage tanks volume size ...............................................55
Figure 25: Transition paths to alternative fuels ........................................................56
Figure 26: Bunkering infrastructure development ....................................................56
vi
List of tables
Table 1: Properties of natural gas ...........................................................................11

Table 2: Properties of ammonia ..............................................................................21
Table 3: Energy required and CO2 footprint for BAT in 2020 for the three types of
ammonia production, and their 2050 potential ........................................................22
Table 4: Challenges and potential solutions for NH3 generator conversion .............25
Table 5: Properties of hydrogen ..............................................................................31
Table 6: Blue and green hydrogen production emissions ........................................43
Table 7: Comparison of fuels storage volume and other characteristics ..................47
Table 8: Bunkering intervals for different type of fuels .............................................48
vii
Glossary of Terms
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels

AFC Alkaline Fuel Cell
BAT Best Available Technologies
Bio-LNG Liquefied Biomethane
BLEVE Boiling Liquid Expanding Explosion
BOG Boil-off GAs
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CCS Carbon Capture Storage
CGH2 Compressed Hydrogen
CI Compression Ignition
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
ECA Emission Control Area
EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation
EL GI Electronic Gas Injection
e-LNG Electric and Eco-friendly Liquified Natural Gas
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HFO Heavy Fuel Oil
HSFO High Sulphur Fuel Oil
FIVA Fuel Injection Valve Actuator
FSS Fuel Supply System
FVT Fuel Valve Train
ICE Internal Combustion Engines
IGC Code International Code for the Construction and Equipment of
Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk
IGC Code International Code for the Construction and Equipment of
Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk
IGF Code International Code of Safety for Ships Using Gases or other
viii
Low-Flashpoint Fuels
IMO International Maritime Organisation
IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency
LGH2 Liquid Hydrogen
LHV Lower Heating Value

LNG Liquified Natural Gas
LSHFO Low Sulphur Heavy Fuel Oil
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships
MCFC Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell
MDO Marine Diesel Oil
ME-GI M-type, Electronically Controlled Gas Injection
MEL-GI M-type, Electronically Controlled Liquid Gas Injection
MGO Marine Gas Oil
PEMFC Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell
PMs Particulate matters
RoRo Roll-on/Roll-off
Ro-Pax Roll-on/Roll off passenger [ferry]
SCR Selective Catalyst Reduction
SI Spark Ignition
SEEMP Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan
SMR Steam Methane Reforming
SOFC Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
VLSFO Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil
List of Chemical Substances
C2H6 Ethane
C3H8 Propane
C4H10 Butane
CH4 Methane
ix
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
H2 Hydrogen
H2O Water
H2S Hydrogen Sulphide
N2 Nitrogen
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NH4OH Ammonium Hydroxide
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
SOX Sulphur Oxides
SO2 Sulphur Dioxide
SO3 Sulphur Trioxide
SO4 Sulphate
List of Units
bar bar [Pressure: 1 bar = 0.9869 Standard atmospheres]

BTU British Thermal Unit
°C Unit of temperature on the Celsius scale
°F Unit of temperature on the Fahrenheit scale
J joules [Energy: I joule = 1 Newton.m]
kg kilogramme
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt hour
L Litre
m3 Cubic Metre
MPa Megapascal Pressure Unit [1MPa = 1 N/mm2]
rpm Revolutions Per Minute
ton unit of 1000 kilograms, equivalent to 2204.62 pounds
W Watt [Power = 1 joule/second]
x
1. Introduction
Population growth increased the energy and products demand. As a result, the
international seaborne trade expanded and reached almost 85% of total global trade.
What is more, the upward trend in world trade inevitably leads to higher fuel
consumption. The burn of fossil fuels and mainly heavy fuel oil (HFO) causes serious
environmental and human health issues (Ampah et al., 2021). It has been reported
that roughly 330 million metric tons of fossil fuels are consumed by the shipping sector
yearly. Most vessels use internal combustion engines (ICE) and burn fossil fuels for
their power needs. HFO is a distillation by-product of the crude oil process. It is
characterised as low-grade fuel that includes a significant amount of sulphur. Sulphur
is linked with sulphur oxide (SOX) emissions. It is emitted into the atmosphere through
the exhaust gasses of the internal ICE. Except for SOX, nitrogen oxide (NOX) and
particulate matters (PMs) are included in the exhaust gasses. These cause intense
environmental damage too. Finally, it is anticipated that the need for marine fuel will
be increased twice by 2030 (Chiong et al., 2021).
Apart from the mentioned greenhouse gasses (GHG), there is also carbon dioxide
(CO2). CO2 is the most common and is a massive environmental threat. The meeting
of the international maritime organisation (IMO) in the April of 2018 reported that the
maritime industry is responsible for around 3% of the total emissions of GHG
worldwide. It is anticipated that the CO2 emissions of international shipping will be
increased between 50% and 250% by the year 2050 if no action is taken. The reasons
for that wideband reflected upon the economic growth and evolution. For instance,
vessels’ efficiency optimisation and usage of cleaner fuels. Carbon dioxide is
considered the main greenhouse gas and has the paramount influence on global
warming (Balcombe et al., 2019).
As a result, IMO formed a strategy to mitigate the environmental hazards from air
emissions. Its actions include limitations on the sulphur content of marine fuels and
reduced NOX emission limits. In addition, IMO has imposed escalating regulations on
the ships' carbon intensity, with a total target to decarbonise the shipping industry until
the century ends. Thus, these regulations lead shipowners to adapt their operational
practices and fuel choices. In such a manner, they comply with the evolving
regulations. Inevitably, a shift to fuels with low sulphur content and low or zero-carbon
fuels is one-way (Foretich et al., 2021).
1
1.1 Aim of the Project
This project aims at multifaceted research and analysis of alternative fuels for shipping
decarbonisation. The aim of this research will be achieved by the following objectives:
1. Understand the importance of decarbonisation on the environment and

humans.
2. Assess the feasibility of the IMO’s targets regarding the air emissions
reduction.
3. Review and analyse the properties, ways of production, costs, and operations
associated with the selected fuels.
4. Critically evaluate their major challenges on fuel storage space, availability,

and regulatory framework gaps.
5. Identify and recommend possible ways of implementing sustainable

alternative fuels in international shipping.
1.2 Research Limitations
The analysis spectrum of the research is wide to cover many aspects of alternative
fuels. Hence the focus is limited only to three alternative fuels. These are LNG,
ammonia, and hydrogen. In addition, stakeholders involved in decarbonisation
projects limit their information amount announced in the public sector. Finally,
information validity is continuously changing due to the fast-paced evolution of new
technologies.
1.3 Literature Review
The information on the selected topic is originated from multiple resources. Now it will
be mentioned some of the resources from which derived a high-quality information for
the conducted study.
Regarding the emissions of conventional fuels and their reduction. Studies by the
(IMO, 2020) and whitepapers from large manufacturing companies like (Alfa Laval,
2
2020), with details on the formation of emissions and suggestions to minimise them.
Also, the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships (MARPOL)
analyses the available measures for the decarbonisation of the maritime sector.
Den Norske Veritas (DNV, 2015) reports and white papers like (Hendrik and Hektor,
2020) on the utilisation of alternative fuels enhance the knowledge on the specific
subject. Additionally, targeted reports on hydrogen (ABS, 2021a) and ammonia (ABS,
2020a) as future marine fuels have been prepared by the American Bureau of
Shipping. They are giving details on the proper handling and vessels’ design
considerations to support the usage of these fuels.
For the ways that alternative fuels can be used in ICE to achieve zero-carbon
emissions in the future, there are reports and articles that can offer different insights.
For instance, pioneer engine manufacturers like MAN and Wärtsilä are developing
engines and systems that run in alternative fuels (MAN, 2019) and (Wärtsilä, 2021).
Moreover, information from reports conducted on fuel cells technology fuelled by
alternative fuels (Xing et al., 2021b) and (Godjevac et al., 2016) offer an alternative
approach to the evolving energy converters.
Concerning the financial aspects and decarbonisation pathways. The International

Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA, 2021) and (Bloomberg NEF, 2020) give valuable
information through their reports. Finally, the status and challenges faced by
alternative fuels are assessed through multiple articles and studies. For instance, the
whitepaper of (TotalEnergies, 2021) and (DNV, 2021c) present the current situation
and the future trends of alternative marine fuels.
1.5 Outline
This paper comprises nine parts. Initially, the first part gives some theoretical
information to the reader. Moreover, it explains the project motivations and provides
the main sources of the literature review. Part two analyses the major air pollutants
from the burning of fossil fuels. Similarly, it presents the actions of IMO on air
emissions reduction. The third part analyses multiple aspects of the three potential
alternative fuels under decarbonisation prospect. Part four examines the
environmental performance of these fuels in comparison with conventional fuels. Part
five assesses the status of the examined alternative fuels in the market. In addition, it
3
presents their key challenges and gives some future considerations. Part six
describes how the research was conducted and the ways that data was collected.
Part seven presents the findings of the research and discussion on the results. Part
eight displays the conclusions of the study. Finally, part nine makes recommendations
for future work.
4
2. Air emissions in Shipping and Reduction Incentives
2.1 Air Emissions from the Burning of Conventional Fuels
For many decades, vessels using fossil fuels to run their engines, mostly HFO and
marine diesel oil (MDO). However, the burn of fossil fuels emits air pollutants leaving
a negative environmental impact (Langer et al., 2020). Recently, GHG emissions from
shipping operations are attracting interest globally. Something worth mentioning is
that the fuels' environmental footprint is about its full life cycle and not only its
combustion. These pollutants include stages like production, processing,
transportation, and distribution (Spoof-Tuomi and Niemi, 2020). The main air
pollutants emitted using conventional marine fuels are NOX, SOX, CO2, and PMs.
Each one will analyse separately and in more detail in the next subchapters.
2.1.1 Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
The combustion of conventional fuels in the vessels' engines produce NOX between
other pollutants. NOX formation comes from the reaction of nitrogen and oxygen in
high temperatures during combustion. In heat engines, NOX emissions are a common
pollutant. They appear with most fuels at high combustion temperatures. As a result,
the combination of nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide occurs and is named NO X. Nitric
oxide has no colour or odour, while nitrogen oxide is brownish with a sharp odour.
NOX emissions result in fog formation, acid rain, and ground-level ozone. Moreover,
it contributes to the rise of PMs. Therefore, high levels of NOX are responsible for
health risks. Also, they cause forest degradation and water acidification (Alfa Laval,
2020).
2.1.2 Sulphur Oxides (SOX)
The air emissions of SOX are in line with the amount of sulphur contained in the
burning fuel. Sulphur is oxidised during the combustion process. Sulphur dioxide
(SO2) forms around 95% of the total SOX emissions, while the rest 5% is formed by
sulphur trioxide (SO3) and sulphate (SO4). The specific fuel consumption and the
engine load have the same behavior regarding the SOX formation. The emissions are
5
reduced at higher loads while at lower loads are increased (Grigoriadis et al., 2021).
Shipping’s SO2 emissions globally represent roughly 13% of the total emissions. SOX
emissions are the main culprits of acid rain. Acid rain damages vegetation and
acidifies lakes and oceans waters. Lastly, SOX causes respiratory damage and other
health problems to humans (Vedachalam, Baquerizo and Dalai, 2022).
2.1.3 Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Ships’ air emissions include CO2 which is the major GHG. Global warming is the
foremost consequence of GHG. In addition, climate change is speeding up and
imposing limitations on natural resources (Vidas et al., 2021). During the combustion,
carbon that exists in fossil fuels is oxidised and turns into CO2 delivering chemical
energy. Then, CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere together with the rest by-products
of combustion. To be more specific, every Kg of combusted fuel emits about 3kg CO2
in the atmosphere. Shipping emits almost 3% of the total anthropogenic CO2
emissions. Future estimations conclude that the rate tends to increase. Since shipping
emissions continuously grow. Of course, each ship type contributes differently as its
operation profile and equipment vary (Fridell, 2019).
2.1.4 Particulate Matters (PMs)
Ship engines that burn fossil fuels emit a remarkable number of PMs. PMs emissions
are categorised in multiple ways, with the size being the most common. The size of
PMs is measured in nanometres and varies in magnitude. For example, PM10 and
PM2,5 denote the size of the particles’ mass and mean 10 and 2,5 μm. It can be found
either in solid or in volatile formations. Also, the name black carbon characterises
particles that can absorb light easier. They are soot particles coming from the exhaust
gasses of boilers and engines (Fridell, 2019). Engines that burn HFO have higher
PMs emissions compared to those that burn low sulphur heavy fuel oil (LSHFO). It
has been found that PMs can appear as the second derivative of SOX and NOX
emissions. Hence, the reduction of these emissions through combustion optimisation
and fuels without sulphur will decrease the PMs emissions too. PMs are harmful to
humans, especially the smaller size particles which are inhaled easier with severe
effects on their health. Finally, PMs spread through the air to water and land. They
6
contribute to water acidification and harm crops and forests (Vedachalam, Baquerizo
and Dalai, 2022).
2.2 Incentives to Reduce Air Emissions in Shipping
IMO is the main regulatory authority body of the shipping industry. IMO’s initial
strategy on GHG comprises of the following targets. First, the reduction of CO2
emissions of international shipping to a minimum of 40% until 2030 in comparison
with 2008. Second, the decrease on the yearly GHG emissions of international
shipping to no lesser than 50% until 2050 in relation to 2008. Last, to fade out of GHG
emissions from international shipping during this century (Shipping Zero Emission
Project, 2020). The IMO’s initial strategy is divided into three parts. Initially, the short-
term (2018 – 2023) focuses on energy efficiency. Next, the medium-term (2023 –
2030) includes measures on emission reduction mechanisms and low-carbon fuels.
Finally, the long-term (beyond 2030) aims at zero-carbon fuels (Ampah et al., 2021).
In the next subchapters, will be analysed the measures developed by MARPOL.

MARPOL is one of the main pillars of IMO. Annex VI of MARPOL is about energy
efficiency and air emissions of shipping.
2.2.1 Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)
In 2001, the energy efficiency design index (EEDI) was added in MARPOL annex VI
(regulation 21). This target aims to decrease the CO2 emissions on newly built ships
by optimising their technical efficiency. EEDI imposes a level of energy efficiency per
ton-mile. This is different for each ship type and size. The main concept of EEDI is to
promote technological innovations in shipping design and construction. Its goal is to
achieve a 10% decrease of grams of CO2 for each ton-mile every five years starting
from 2015. IMO’s short-term measures involve enforcement of EEDI measures to
optimise ships’ energy efficiency (Balcombe et al., 2019).
7
2.2.2 Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI)
The energy efficiency existing ship Index (EEXI) is like EEDI, but it targets the existing
ships. It requires existing vessels to calculate their energy efficiency performance in
the same way with EEDI. In this way, they must achieve the prearranged level of the
required EEXI. Surveys and relevant certificates are necessary to apply and enforce
the EEXI. Vessels that fail to comply with the required EEXI must upgrade their
efficiency. They can achieve that by limiting their engine power or utilising energy-
saving systems (Shipping Zero Emission Project, 2020).
2.2.3 Carbon Intensity Index (CII)
In 2021 IMO adopted the carbon intensity index (CII) aiming at the carbon emissions
reduction of international shipping. It is scheduled to enter into force in 2023. CII
measures the CO2 emitted by each vessel per unit transport work. A reference point
and a reduction factor will be agreed to aim at an escalated progression on the
operational carbon intensity of the vessel. The yearly operational CII will be put
against the required reference value for verification. That will facilitate to decide on
the operational carbon intensity rating. The rating will be derived from a ranking from
A to E. Results will represent their performance levels. Finally, all the performance
records will be kept in the vessel’s ship energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP)
(Horton et al., 2022).
2.2.4 Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP)
Another initiative regarding the reduction of GHG emissions from merchant vessels is
SEEMP. It was adopted in 2013 at MARPOL Annex VI (regulation 22) on the energy
efficiency of vessels. It is compulsory for all vessels of more than 400 gross tonnages.
Each vessel must have its own SEEMP. It is the kind of tool that will enable companies
to optimise the energy efficiency of their fleet. SEEMP has to be formed by each
company and find ways to increase its vessels’ energy performance. The SEEMP
application is comprised of four steps which are planning, implementation monitoring,
and evaluation. In other words, it is a plan, do, check, act framework aiming at
continuous improvement. The content of the energy efficiency plan is up to the
8
shipowner and does not have specific rules by the IMO. The latest edition of IMO
includes advice and guidelines to be formed an effective SEEMP (Hansen,
Rasmussen and Lützen, 2020).
2.2.5 Data Collection System (DCS)
IMO’s second initiative is the data collection system (DCS) which focuses on the
vessels’ fuel consumption. In this way, IMO will create a database on the ships’ fuel
consumption globally. DCS aims at CO2 emissions reduction, had established in
2018, and came into force in 2019. It is under MARPOL annex VI (regulation 22A).
DCS is mandatory and aims to gather and evaluate the emissions data of the shipping
sector (Rony et al., 2019). DCS is applicable to every ship that is greater than 5.000
gross tonnages. Except for the total fuel consumption, recordings must include the
vessel’s capacity, distance travelled, and hours underway. That data must be
collected every year and on, after 2019 (IMO, 2020).
9
3. Three Alternative Fuels
This chapter describes the most promising fuels that could be used for shipping
decarbonisation. Their choice is determined by their potential for GHG reduction and
the fulfilment of the IMO 2050 air emissions reduction target (Horton et al., 2022).
Focus is attributed to the following alternative fuels:
 Liquified natural gas

 Ammonia
 Hydrogen
3.1 Liquified Natural Gas (CH4)
3.1.1 Properties and Characteristics
Liquified natural gas (LNG) is natural gas, consisting mostly of methane (CH4), and
some lower concentrations of heavier components like ethane (C2H6), propane
(C3H8), and butane (C4H10). In some natural gasses may be present carbon dioxide
(CO2), nitrogen (N2) and hydrogen sulphide (H2S) (see figure 1). The production of
natural gas at atmospheric pressure requires refrigeration at -162°C. Thus, LNG is a
cryogenic liquid with a density lighter than water (Arefin et al., 2020).
Figure 1: Natural Gas Composition (Foss, 2012)
10
Natural gas has the highest energy efficiency compared to other fossil fuels.
Moreover, natural gas in the liquid state occupies about 600 times less volume
compared to that of its gaseous state. It is lighter than the air, colourless, shapeless,
odourless, tasteless noncorrosive and nontoxic. Table 1 indicates the properties of
natural gas accompanied by their relative values (Mokhatab, Poe and Mak, 2019).
Table 1: Properties of natural gas, adjusted from (Mokhatab, Poe and Mak, 2019)
Property Value
Relative molar mass 17-20
Carbon content, weight% 73.3
Hydrogen content, weight% 23.9
Oxygen content, weight% 0.4
Hydrogen/carbon atomic ratio 3.0-4.0
Relative density, 15°C 0.72-0.81
Boiling point, °C -162
Autoignition temperature, °C 540-560
Octane number 120-130
Methane number 69-99
Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio, weight 17.2
Vapour 5-15
flammability limits,
Flammability limits volume % 0.7-2.1
Lower heating/calorific value, MJ/kg 38-50
Stoichiometric lower heating value, MJ/kg 2.75
Methane concentration, volume % 80-99
Ethane concentration, volume % 2.7-4.6
Nitrogen concentration, volume % 0.1-15
Carbon dioxide concentration, volume % 1-5
Sulphur concentration, weight% ppm <5
Specific CO2 formation, g/MJ 38-50
Natural gas heating value varies depending on the type and quantity of the other
gasses included. There are two heating values net and gross heating values. Their
arithmetic difference is about the heat needed to condensate the water contained in
the fuel at specific conditions. The gas industry uses the gross heating value in its
various applications. Also, it is known as a higher heating value too. The
measurement of natural gas heating value is expressed in British Thermal Unit (BTU).
A BTU is equal to the required energy to increase the temperature of 1 pound of water
by 1 Fahrenheit (°F). Additionally, since natural gas is odourless in its initial status,
most regulations require an odorant additive. That is achievable by using mercaptan
as an odorant because it smells like rotten eggs. Regulation’s requirements are for
11
users can detect concentrations of 1% of natural gas in the air by odour. The vapour
flammability limit by volume of natural gas is around 5%. Hence, the requirement is
lower by 20% out of the lower flammability level. Finally, the combustion of odorants
does not cause issues of toxicity and sulphur content (Mokhatab, Poe and Mak, 2019).
3.1.2 Production and storage infrastructures
The oil and gas deposits in the ground and in the seafloor formed by settles of organic
materials small plants and animals in the long past, around 150 million years ago. The
silt and sand under high temperatures and pressures turned into hydrocarbons. As
mentioned before natural gas is not pure methane. Also, it includes other gasses in
smaller ratios. Thus, there are three types of wells for natural gas extraction. These
are the gas wells, oil wells, and condensate wells. Gas wells include crude oil and gas
separated, termed as free gas. In oil wells, the gas is mixed with the crude oil and
called dissolved gas. While in condensate wells there is only a little or no crude oil,
known as non-associated gas (Havard, 2013).
Another form of LNG is bio-LNG which is liquid biomethane. It is created from the
process of anaerobic digestion of organic wastes. As the bio-LNG comes from
biodegradable resources, the CO2 released in the atmosphere remains the same
since the natural combustion process will occur in any case. Consequently, bio-LNG
is a renewable fuel source with a lower carbon footprint compared to other fossil fuels.
What is more, bio-LNG can be mixed with fossil LNG in all ratios and can use the LNG
existing infrastructure of storage transport and bunkering (Forsyth, 2022).
Apart from bio-LNG, there is e-LNG (electric and eco-friendly LNG). It is produced by
combining captured CO2 and hydrogen (H2). Hydrogen comes from the water
separation with electrolysis powered by renewable resources. After, the combination
of CO2 and H2 through methanation in a Sabatier reactor produces water and methane
(Collet et al., 2017).
There are various types of tanks for the storage of LNG (see appendix A). They can
be divided into two main categories. The first category involves the independent tanks,
which include the types of A, B, and C tanks. Second, are the non-independent tanks
that subdivide into the membrane and semi-membrane tanks (ABS, 2014).
12
i) Independent tanks are self-supported tanks. Hence, they do not depend on the
hull’s structure for reinforcement.
 Type A tanks usually have prismatic shapes and are designed under
recognised standards. The vapour pressure should be less than 0,7 bar, and
the minimum design pressure must be under -10°C. The secondary barrier
should maintain the cargo for 15 days in case of leakage (ABS, 2014).
 Type B tanks (figure 2) have prismatic or spherical shapes. Its design complies
with the concept of ”leak before failure”. In other words, it is conducted a crack
propagation analysis through fracture mechanics techniques. To ensure that,
in case of crack occurs, the growth should be the minimum. In that way, a
violent leakage in the adjacent areas is avoided. These tanks require a partial
secondary barrier with drip pans and a spray shield. The minimum design
temperature must be lower than -10°C (ABS, 2014).
Figure 2: Illustration of an independent prismatic type B LNG tank (Mokhatab et al., 2014)
 Type C tanks have been created for pressures higher than 2 bar with spherical
and cylindrical shape. These types of tanks can withstand higher vapour space
pressures compared to the A and B type tanks. Moreover, there is no need for
a secondary barrier (ABS, 2014).
13
ii) Non-independent tanks or membrane tanks contain a thin membrane. The
membrane is assisted by the insulation based on the hull’s structure. Thus, they
are not self-supporting tanks. The membrane is specially designed to
compensate loads from thermal expansion and contraction without suffering from
stress. The tanks’ vapour pressure must be well under 0,7 bar to comply with the
construction and design standards (ABS, 2014).
Figure 3 Generic view of a membrane tank (Mokhatab et al., 2014)
Figure 3 depicts a typical membrane tank. That tank consists of a thin metal layer
named primary barrier. Next, there is insulation, followed by the secondary barrier
accompanied by extra insulation. It is known as sandwich-type construction
(Mokhatab et al., 2014).
3.1.3 Internal Combustion Engines
The idea of using the boil-off gas (BOG) from the storage tanks for fuel to the main
propulsion engines started on LNG carriers. The initial thought was based on
economic considerations. In the past, the production cost of energy from gas was
significantly smaller compared to the cost produced by HFO. For example, ten years
ago the power obtained from burning HFO had three times the cost of the same power
obtained by burning LNG. That led shipowners to focus on dual-fuel ICE to propel
their ships. Apart from LNG carriers, it expanded in other vessel types. Dual-fuel
14
engines are being used as generator sets and for main propulsion. Medium-speed
and high-speed engines are easier to run on dual fuel, while low-speed engines have
higher thermal efficiency (Giernalczyk, 2019).
Apart from LNG carriers, the first LNG-fuelled Ro-Ro/Passenger ship was GLUTRA
in 2000. It was propelled by Mitsubishi GS12R-PTK V12 configuration engines, with
an output power of 675 kW at 1500 rpm in pure gas Otto cycle. Since then, dual-fuel
engine manufacturers like Wärtsilä, MAN, and Caterpillar developed two-stroke and
four-stroke engines to run on gas or diesel. In 2005 Wärtsilä introduced the first four-
stroke dual-fuel engine. While, in late 2012 MAN delivered the first two-stroke LNG
fuelled engine named M-type, Electronically Controlled Gas Injection (ME-GI), (see
figure 4). Finally, in 2014 Wärtsilä produced the (RT-flex50 and X62DF) two-stroke
engines (DNV, 2015).
Figure 4: Components to be modified: ME-GI compared to an ME engine (MAN, 2013)
15
Figure 4 depicts the modifications in a typical electrohydraulic control ME engine to
be transformed into a ME-GI engine. The main alternations are on the cylinder cover,
mostly on the valve block. The electronic gas injection valve (EL GI) is placed in each
cylinder head. In addition, double-wall gas pipes have to be installed to spot gas
leakages. Finally, a fuel injection valve actuator (FIVA) is fitted to control the engine
during the dual-fuel operation (MAN, 2013).
3.1.4 Fuel Cells
Another way to produce electrical power in ships for their auxiliaries' demands or for
propulsion is through fuel cell systems. Most ships use diesel generators for their
electricity production. In ICE, we have the conversion of chemical energy into
electrical energy through mechanical and thermal energy. On the other hand, in fuel
cells, chemical energy is transformed directly into electricity. That technology offers
benefits like higher efficiency, reduction of noise and vibration, plus NOX emissions
decrease compared to a diesel engine (Godjevac et al., 2016).
The main issue in fuel cells is the high cost of catalysts. Platinum is rare and pricy
metal. Anthony Kucernak and his team from Imperial College of London found a way
to replace platinum with something abundant and cheaper. Iron combined with carbon
and nitrogen offered a viable solution. They achieved to detach single iron atoms by
forming a lattice structure with carbon and zinc. Then the chemical replacement of
zinc with iron solved the issue of iron forming stacks. In that way, the reaction
accelerated, with the new catalyst efficiency reaching a maximum of 50%, of the
platinum catalyst. Finally, the tests proved that there is the potential for further
improvements (Whipple, 2022, p. 20). Appendix B gives a summary of fuel cell
technologies. Many projects and feasibility studies focusing on energy efficiency, fuel
impurities effects, and power capacity ended up in three best fuel cell technologies
for maritime use. These are the solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC), the exchange membrane
fuel cell (PEMFC), and the molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) (Xing et al., 2021b).
In 2005, the FELICITAS subproject 2 was led by Rolls-Royce, working with the
Lürssen shipyard and the universities of Eindhoven, Hamburg, and Genoa. The aim
of the project was to adapt the design of Rolls-Royce’s SOFC (see Figure 5) for
marine use (Tonstad et al., 2017).
16
Figure 5: 250 kW Generator module of Rolls-Royce Fuel Cell Systems (Tonstad et al., 2017)
The project achieved a SFOC of 250 kW fuelled by LNG and an efficiency of well over
60%. Moreover, they were experimented on the combination of SOFC and PEMFC to
achieve a better overall efficiency. A great result was the creation of a micro-reactor
that purifies the downstream of SFOC to feed the PEMFC system (Tonstad et al.,
2017).
3.1.5 Cost and Availability
It is very difficult to predict with accuracy all the parameters and investment costs of
LNG. Price fluctuations are being affected by many multiple factors in the long term.
The LNG supply is continuously increasing as consumption moves up. National
taxation schemes regarding the LNG marine fuel may have an impact on the
economic feasibility of inland shipping. Figure 6 shows a fuel price scenario from 2010
to 2030.
17
Figure 6: Expected fuel prices (Pierre, Niels and Mads, 2011)
The prediction assumes that the price will grow higher as the production cost will be
higher too. Marine gas oil (MGO), LSHFO are estimated to rise steeper than heavy
HFO and LNG. Also, LNG is expected to have a growth in demand (Pierre, Niels and
Mads, 2011).
Another driver for the LNG growth is the expansion of the existing facilities of many
countries. In that way, they could supply LNG to ships through trucks or bunker barges
as a part of the existing terminal. Many regasification and import terminals are planned
and built globally, mostly for land-based LNG supply. The development of these
projects will create the foundation for the supply of LNG to ships too. Of course,
possible delays of these project deliveries can create obstacles to the development
of the LNG bunkering infrastructures (IMO, 2016). Figure 7 displays the infrastructure
in operation and infrastructure in order globally.
18
Figure 7: Worldwide growth in LNG use and infrastructure (SEA-LNG, 2022)
They already exist 33 LNG bunker vessels, plus 42 under discussion or already
ordered. What is more, there are 141 bunkering ports globally. According to Clarkson,
the bunkering ports will reach 170 in 2022 (SEA-LNG, 2022).
3.1.6 Safety Considerations
The LNG as cargo is regulated by the International Code for the Construction and
Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code), ISO 28460:2010
Standard, and the SIGTTO LNG ship-to-ship guidelines. Currently, these standards
are applied to LNG carriers. Nevertheless, some of these regulations may be
implemented in LNG bunkering operations. Training of the involved personnel is a key
to intercepting potential accidents (IMO, 2016).
The potential identified risks of an accidental LNG release are the following. First, the
contact of LNG with human tissue causes frost burns and cryogenic injuries. Second,
when it is in contact with the structure of the ship can create brittle fractures to the
vessel’s components. Third, it is an asphyxiant in some concentrations in the
atmosphere, and due to the formed cloud reduces the visibility. Moreover, LNG has a
19
rapid phase transition, and in the case of ignition, it can cause a boiling liquid
expanding explosion (BLEVE). Additionally, the sloshing effect can appear in partially
filled storage tanks (IMO, 2016). Finally, the rollover phenomenon is appeared in LNG
storage tanks with the instantaneous mix of different densities of LNG, resulting in
rapid BOG release (SIGTTO, 2012).
3.2 Ammonia (NH3)
Ammonia (NH3) in atmospheric conditions is in a gas state with a strong odour and is
colourless. Pure ammonia is named anhydrous ammonia which means without water.
Ammonia is a hygroscopic fuel which means it can easily absorb water from the
atmosphere. Nevertheless, on the grounds of its hygroscopic properties, in case of an
atmospheric release, it will be formed a white cloud. That happens due to the
immediate absorption of moisture from the atmospheric air. As a result, the cloud may
become denser than the air. Further, ammonia can be easily dissolved in water
forming ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH), which is caustic. Ammonia is highly corrosive
and has an alkaline pH of over 7. Hence, it can easily corrode copper, brass cast iron
and galvanised metals. Although it is flammable it does not ignite easily. In addition,
the risk for fire by ammonia vapours in open spaces is low, while in enclosed spaces
is significantly higher. Table 2 presents the main properties of ammonia (Hammer et
al., 2021).
20
Table 2: Properties of ammonia (Raya et al., 2020)
Property Value or Detail

Molecular Mass 17.03 g/mol
Colour Colourless
Odour Sharp, irritating
Physical State Gas (at room temperature)
Melting Point -77.7oC
Boiling Point -33.35oC
Flash Point 11oC
Decomposition Point 500oC
Density (gas) 0.7710 g/L
Density (liquid) 0.6818 g/L
Vapour Density 0.5697
Critical Temperature 132.4oC
Critical Pressure 111.3 atm
Heat of Fusion 58.1 kJ/mol
Heat of Vaporisation 23.3 kJ/mol
Heat of Combustion -316 kJ/mol
The boiling temperature of ammonia is -33°C, with a flammability range between 15%
and 28%. In the gas state, it has a lighter density than the air. Also, the liquid form is
less dense than the water. In contrast with LNG, ammonia does not store in cryogenic
temperatures (Hammer et al., 2021).
3.2.2 Production and Storage Infrastructures
Ammonia production can be achieved in different ways. The main concept is the
combination of N2 from the atmosphere and H2 from different sources (Raya et al.,
2020). Ammonia can be named brown, blue, or green depending on its production
path. First, brown ammonia is produced by fossil fuels such as coal, fuel, and natural
gas through steam methane reforming (SMR). Second, ammonia is produced again
from fossil fuels, but in this case, there is carbon capture and storage (CCS), called
blue ammonia. Finally, the green ammonia comes from the electricity produced by
renewable energy resources and is carbon-free. Table 3 gives the best available
technologies (BAT) of 2020 for each ammonia type. Also, their CO2 emissions, their
approximate energy consumption, and their potential for 2050 (Hendrik and Hektor,
2020).
21
Table 3: Energy required and CO2 footprint for BAT in 2020 for the three types of ammonia
production, and their 2050 potential (Hjartholm Kalstad, 2021).
In 2019 as stated by the United States Geological Survey, the total global ammonia
production reached 150 million metric tons. Additionally, in a four-year period, the
global capacity of ammonia was anticipated to rise by 4%. Presently, most of the
produced ammonia comes from hydrocarbons. Mainly methane is utilised for
hydrogen production through steam reforming. The required nitrogen for the process
comes from air liquefaction. Also, hydrogen can be produced from electrolysis (see
figure 8) by renewable energy resources and then synthesised into ammonia. In that
scenario, ammonia achieves zero-carbon intensity in all stages. Carbon-neutral,
ammonia is very promising to comply with the IMO’s 2050 GHG objectives (ABS,
2020a).
22
Figure 8: Illustration of green ammonia production (MAN, 2020)
The process of Haber-Bosch that combines N2 and H2 in high temperatures is used

mostly in ammonia production. The mixing ratio is three-part N2 to one-part H2. Then,
that mixture reacts with an iron-based catalyst at around 300 bar and 450 °C. After
several passes through the reactor, ammonia is formed and recovered as a
condensate during the process (Hendrik and Hektor, 2020).
Ammonia can be easily used as a marine fuel in existing vessels. The knowledge that
built from LNG and methanol has similarities with ammonia in handling, to some
extent. On top of that, ammonia does not require cryogenic storage and does not
produce BOG like LNG. That facilitates the handling and storage operations and
decreases the costs. Mainly for short route ships, a pressurised-type C tank appears
the most viable solution. The storage of fuel at ambient temperature does not require
a reliquification system. In addition, type C tanks can be easily installed on the deck.
As a result, the integration with the rest of the ship's systems remains simple. The
only limitation of a type C tank applicability is that the volume cannot exceed 2000 m3
(Alfa Laval et al., 2020).
Ammonia is mostly stored in a liquid state to minimise volume and leaks. It is easily
liquified through cooling or compression. Refrigerated tanks at -33°C, at 1 bar, or
pressurised tanks at 10 bars at 25°C can accommodate ammonia (Cames et al.,
2021). The storage tanks of ammonia must satisfy the International Code of Safety
for Ships (IGF Code) and IGC Code. These include the minimum distances from the
accommodation area and the hull’s shell. What is more, all the relevant safety and
design requirements required by the codes must be applied. For instance, the IGC
23
Code (Section 17.12) refers to compatible materials with ammonia. These materials
are suitable for NH3 marine fuel storage tanks applications (ABS, 2020a).
The use of ammonia as fuel in ICE has its roots in the past, over World War II. It was
mixed with coal to power buses. Next, in the 1990s the issue of global warming turns
the attention to ammonia again. Most fuels can be utilised in ICE, as they are efficient
energy converters. Of course, there are many different types of ICE. Multiple factors
have to be considered before the final choice. These include emissions regulations,
fuel availability, and involving costs. Since ammonia can be stored both in a liquid and
in a gas state, it offers the flexibility of choices through the engine types (Wisløff and
Nervold, 2021).
According to past research on ammonia’s combustion in dual-fuel engines, the major

issue is the high autoignition temperature of ammonia (651°C) compared to diesel
(256°C). That creates the demand for pilot fuel injection to burn ammonia at lower
pressures and temperatures. Table 3 summarises potential problems on the ammonia
use as fuel in power generators and gives possible solutions for their resolve
(Yapicioglu and Dincer, 2019).
24
Table 4: Challenges and potential solutions for NH3 generator conversion (Yapicioglu and
Dincer, 2019)
Problem Description Possible solutions

• Adding another agent, substance,
The auto ignition temperature for or fuel source to lower the
ammonia is 651 °C where this value combustion temperatures and
is 256°C for diesel fuel. As the pressures.
High
generator system was designed for • Changing the combustion ratios by
pressures &
diesel fuel the material used for the replacing the cylinder heads and
temperatures engine, and cylinder block should steel cylinders.
withstand these very high • Changing the whole system to work
temperature and pressure values. under very high temperature and
pressure values.
Using ammonia as a fuel source will

result in water propagation, which
The corroding parts used in a diesel
might corrode the engine
Corrosion generator should be replaced with non-
components (the engine block, fuel
corroding (ex: stainless steel) ones.
delivery systems) that get in touch
with the fuel source.
The cooling system for the diesel

engine is designed to operate After the problem for high pressures
Cooling
around temperatures much lower and temperatures are dealt with the
system
compared to ammonia fuel’s cooling system should be modified.
combustion.
The only negative effect for

Using a slightly fuel rich mixture and a
ammonia combustion on the
NOx catalytic converter where one mole of
environment is NOx emissions which
emissions NH3 is added for each mole of NOx in
should be taken into consideration
the exhaust.
for the conversion.
Currently, MAN develops two-stroke dual-fuelled ammonia combustion engines. The

principle of operation is based on the following (see figure 9). The fuel supply system
(FSS) delivers ammonia to the engine from storage tanks. Ammonia recirculates
continuously in the FSS to retain the necessary fuel conditions. When the engine is
not running on dual-fuel mode, the fuel valve train (FVT) depressurises and empties
the fuel system of ammonia. That is achieved through the injection of pressurised
nitrogen, which isolates the engine from the fuel recirculation system. Before each
operation on dual fuel, the system’s sealing status is purged by pressurised nitrogen
to ensure the absence of leaks. All the ammonia piping and systems are double wall.
Between the walls, there is a continuous airflow. That satisfies the IMO's requirements
on the detection of potential leakages. An ammonia capture system is part of all the
25
ammonia systems to intercept ammonia from escaping to the environment (MAN,
2020).
Figure 9: Main components of NH3 supply system (MAN, 2020)
Ammonia has slow flame velocity and a short flammability range. Consequently, the
ignition issues of ammonia need to be resolved. The dual-fuel technology progression
by MAN with the M-type, Electronically Controlled Liquid Gas Injection (ME-LGI) is on
the way to solving that problem (ABS, 2020a). The two-stroke ME engine is based on
previous versions for liquid gas injection of propane, and methanol. Some LGI engines
were attained to run in methanol for 50,000 hours. In the same way, these engines
faced issues with low flammability and corrosiveness like ammonia. Hence, these
engines will be the foundations to develop ammonia dual-fuel engines. MAN conducts
research with a university in Japan on ammonia to create appropriate injection
properties. The results show that the fuel supply pressure will be roughly 70 bar and
the injection to around 650 bar (MAN, 2019).
3.2.4 Fuel Cells
Apart from ICE ammonia can be utilised in fuel cells. That option offers improved
thermal efficiencies and decreased air pollution. Ammonia can be used for marine
applications in mostly two types of fuel cells, the SOFC and the PEMFC. The
application can be with straight feed of ammonia to the fuel cell, or as hydrogen
26
source. In the second way a converter is necessary to separate NH3 into H2 and N2,
where N2 feeds the fuel cell. The PMEFC need very clean hydrogen to operate and
cannot fed up directly with ammonia. On the other hand, SOFC are working straight
with ammonia and look more attractive to marine applications. Figure 10 presents a
typical ammonia SOFC (Hansson, Fridell and Brynolf, 2020).
Figure 10: Sketch of SOFC fuelled by ammonia and oxygen (Hjartholm Kalstad, 2021)
The biggest benefit of SOFC is fuel adaptability. It facilitates H2 carrier fuels to be

cracked or reformed directly inside the cell (Hjartholm Kalstad, 2021). Ammonia is a
hydrogen carrier fuel. It can store and transport hydrogen indirectly. These facts make
ammonia an accessible fuel source (Jeerch, Zhang and Tao, 2021). The system's
performance is quite high, almost equal to this of pure hydrogen. A drawback is the
high operating temperature which is around 900 °C. That limits the materials that can
be used from durability and cost perspective. The researchers try to reduce the
operating temperature of SOFC while maintaining the same performance (Hjartholm
Kalstad, 2021).
27
The production and handling costs of ammonia are higher compared to these of
conventional fossil fuels. In particular, the capital expenditure (CAPEX) to invest in
ammonia production is considerable, as almost 60% of the total cost is about
electrolysers. An additional major cost regarding that fuel is the construction of new
bunkering facilities. Current infrastructures are not able to accommodate ammonia
due to its corrosive nature. The average cost of ammonia produced by natural gas at
present is about USD 44/MWh. Additionally, the average cost for ammonia produced
from renewable energy resources is roughly USD 180/MWh. Nevertheless, by 2050
the cost of renewable ammonia is anticipated to be halved and become lower than
that of conventional fuels (IRENA, 2021). In figure 11 there is a comparison of CO2
emissions and costs for brown, blue, and green ammonia production.
Figure 11: Comparison of Costs and CO2 emissions per ton for the three types of ammonia
(Cardoso et al., 2021)
Green ammonia has the highest production cost but zero CO2 emissions. Hence, a
reduced production cost by renewable energy resources is necessary. For instance,
the reduction of electrolysis cost will facilitate green ammonia production,
accompanied by environmental benefits (Fahnestock et al., 2021).
Currently, ammonia has not used as fuel for ships. Hence, the evolution of more
bunkering areas in the future is necessary. The build of more ammonia fuelled vessels
28
will act as a driver on the generation of further bunkering infrastructure. Figure 12
depicts on a map the global ammonia loading and unloading locations. The Nordic
Green Ammonia-Powered Ship M/S NoGAPS will utilise the existing cargo
infrastructure (Fahnestock et al., 2021).
Figure 12: Ammonia terminals across the world (IRENA, 2021)
The annual global ammonia production is roughly 180 million tons. Four-fifths of the
total production is used for fertilisers in the agriculture sector. The largest ammonia
producer is China, which reaches one-third of the total. The rest of two-thirds are
produced by the rest of Asia, Europe, and America. China’s production is based on
coal, while the rest counties produce it from natural gas. Now, there are no existing
applications on ammonia as a marine fuel. But there is an emerging interest in
ammonia as an alternative fuel for shipping. Appendix C summarises ammonia
projects internationally for 2021. For example, in South Korea, they were invested
well over USD 850 million to reduce the environmental footprint of shipping through
ammonia. The existing handling and transport infrastructure of ammonia globally
offers ammonia a competitive advantage compared to other alternative fuels like
hydrogen. Finally, a global turn on renewable energy production will expand green
ammonia production (IRENA, 2021).
29
As far the ammonia as a marine fuel is concerned it has not yet been developed an
international standard. The IGF code is the foundation for ships using low flashpoint
fuels. It started in 2005 while in 2017 developed further to include ships apart from
LNG carriers to utilise LNG as fuel. Currently, is in process to include more fuels
except LNG (Enviu, C-Job and Proton Ventures, 2019).
The major hazard of ammonia is its toxicity. It is very harmful to people, especially for
prolonged periods of exposure. Appendix D illustrates the maximum human exposure
limits. Additionally, when ammonia comes in touch with water, 70% will be absorbed
by water and the rest 30% will be evaporated in a cloud form. It has a big
environmental impact, as it easily kills aquatic organisms, especially fish. Also, the
evaporated cloud can be lethal to the surrounding organisms too. Ammonia is less
flammable compared to natural gas. That is due to its high autoignition temperature
and narrow flammability level. Hence, it has a lower risk of explosion (Enviu, C-Job
and Proton Ventures, 2019). The mixture of ammonia and water is highly corrosive
for many materials like copper and brass. Another issue is the hydraulic shocks in
piping and equipment caused by its high heat of vaporisation. The sudden velocity
alterations can cause severe damages to valves and pipe joints. Lastly, the boiling of
liquid ammonia will expand 710 times as vapour in atmospheric temperatures. A
severe liquid ammonia leakage can destroy the storage tank. This is because of the
high expansion ratio of liquid to gas during phase transition (DNV, 2021a).
3.3 Hydrogen (H2)
Hydrogen is the simplest element and the most abundant in the universe. Its boiling
point is -253°C (see table 10) which is the second lowest of all substances after
helium. In its liquid state is characterised as cryogenic liquid since its liquefaction
temperature is lower than -73°C. Hydrogen has no smell, colour, or taste and in case
of leakage, the detection is difficult. For that reason, they are added thiophanes and
mercaptans as odorants. Also, it is not toxic, but it is an asphyxiant as it replaces the
oxygen of the air. Likewise, its expansion ratio is 1:848, from liquid to gaseous state
30
(at atmospheric conditions). Finally, hydrogen has the smallest molecules compared
to other gases and is prone to leaks (Lanz, Heffel and Messer, 2001).
Table 5: Properties of hydrogen, adjusted from (Bourne and Remme, 2019)
Property Value
Density (gaseous) 0.089 kg/m3 (0°C, 1 bar)
Density (liquid) 70.79 kg/m3 (-253°C, 1 bar)
Boiling point -252.76°C (1 bar)
Energy per unit of mass (LHV) 120.1 MJ/kg
Energy density (ambient cond., LHV) 0.01 MJ/L
Specific energy (liquefied, LHV) 8.5 MJ/L
Flame velocity 346 cm/s
Ignition range 4-77% in air by volume
Autoignition temperature 585°C
Ignition energy 0.02 MJ
* Notes: cm/s = centimetre per second; kg/m3 = kilograms per cubic metre; LHV = lower heating value
MJ = megajoule; MJ/kg =megajoules per kilogram; MJ/L = megajoules per litre.
Hydrogen is characterised by high energy density. For example, a Kg of H2 has almost

three times the energy density of a kg of CH4. It is lighter than the air and very diffusive,
and in case of atmospheric release, it is mixed instantly with the atmospheric air.
Moreover, it is highly flammable as it has a wide flammability range. Lastly, it has
nonluminous flame even in dark places. That makes potential hydrogen fires detection
difficult (Verfondern et al., 2021).
3.3.2 Production and Storage Infrastructures
Hydrogen can be produced in many ways, every way represented by a different

colour. Each method has different techniques which are reflected by different costs
and environmental impact. For example, grey hydrogen comes from fossil fuels like
coal methane, and oil. It is the most common production way (see figure 13) but is
associated with high CO2 releases. While blue hydrogen is produced in the same way
as grey hydrogen its released CO2 is captured and stored through the utilisation of
CCS technologies. Next, green hydrogen is produced through water electrolysis.
However, the electricity consumed in the process is originated from renewable energy
resources like solar and wind. The major advantage of this method is that achieves
31
zero CO2 emissions. Another type is the pink hydrogen achieved through electrolysis,
but the electricity comes from nuclear energy. Finally, the turquoise hydrogen is
extracted from pyrolysis. That method uses membranes or catalysts in reactors with
temperatures around 850°C and separates carbon and hydrogen from other
hydrocarbons. It is a high energy-consuming production way that emits carbon dust
(Corbetti et al., 2021).
Figure 13: Share of various sources in produced hydrogen (MariGreen, 2018)
The efforts must focus on low emission hydrogen pathways from production to
consumption. That can be achieved through electrolysis by renewable energy sources
and CO2 capture in natural gas steam reforming methods (see figure 14).
32
Figure 14: Electrolysis and Steam reforming with capture and storage of CO 2 (Bru and
Rotevatn, 2020)
The natural gas steam reforming method supported by CCS will facilitate the shift
from grey to blue hydrogen transition. The energy efficiency of that method can reach
well over 80%. A large plant can produce roughly 200 tons of hydrogen daily. The
other option is the production of green hydrogen from electrolysis. There are two types
of electrolysis production technologies alkaline and polymer electrolyte membrane
electrolysis. These technologies are mature and available in the market. Alkaline
electrolysis efficiency reaches up to 70% while polymer electrolyte membrane
electrolysis is slightly lower just above 65%. Thus, blue and green hydrogen
production is the most environmentally friendly solution (Bru and Rotevatn, 2020).
Hydrogen can be stored as a cryogenic liquid or as a pressurised gas. The method

which is used mostly for hydrogen storage is compression. There are five types of
tanks to store compressed hydrogen. Each type of tank is constructed with different
materials and withstands different pressures. An alternative way for hydrogen storage
is through liquefaction. In that case, it is cooled to around -253°C. Hydrogen storage
in the liquid state is more efficient as a significantly larger amount is stored upon the
same volume compared to liquid state storage. The maritime industry has built some
experience on cryogenic fuels from LNG, but hydrogen requires further evolution as
it is significantly colder in its liquid state (Van Hoecke et al., 2021).
A different way to utilise hydrogen in ships is through alternative hydrogen carrier

fuels. One promising hydrogen carrier fuel is ammonia. Apart from its direct use in
ICE and fuel cells, it also contains a lot of hydrogen. Ammonia's hydrogen gravimetric
33
capacity is high (around 17,7% at 10 bars in liquid form). Usually, ammonia is
produced from hydrogen through thermolysis, but its drawback is the high operating
temperatures which can reach higher than 650°C (Inal, Dere and Deniz, 2021).
The first attempt to use hydrogen in ICE was in 1820 by Reverend W. Cecil (Lanz,
Heffel and Messer, 2001). In the last decades, its use as fuel is spread to all sectors,
including the maritime. Hydrogen can be used in liquid or gas form in ICE and in fuel
cells. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages (Comer et al., 2022).
The ICE are used widely in the shipping industry and there is a lot of experience and
available technology in their operation. Pure hydrogen can be used in spark-ignition
(SI) engines or as dual fuel in diesel compression ignition (CI) engines. The use of
hydrogen in SI engines causes issues in their thermal efficiency due to knocking and
self-ignition. An exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system can solve that issue.
Alternatively, the engine needs to be adjusted in lean air-fuel mixtures. For CI engines,
hydrogen injection on a small scale of 5% can increase the ratio of hydrogen-carbon.
As a result, the engine’s operating pressure drops, and its durability improves. Finally,
hydrogen has a lower heating value (LHV) than diesel. That may require a bigger size
engine to keep the power output constant (Rayco Quintana, 2018).
Hydrogen has a broad flammability range that allows hydrogen engines to run in large
fuel ratios between 34:1 to 180:1. All engine types (SI and CI) can run on a lean-burn
combustion cycle to decrease the emitted NOX. In some cases, SCR and EGR
systems are necessary to keep the NOX emissions low. Figure 15 describes the
operation of a hydrogen-diesel ICE (ABS, 2021a).
34
Figure 15: Dual Fuel H2-Diesel Co-combustion Process (ABS, 2021a)
Hydrogen systems onboard should be placed away from air intakes or

accommodation openings. In that way, hazards are avoided. Safety distances are a
condition for a safe operation (ABS, 2021a).
3.2.4 Fuel Cells
Instead of ICE fuel cells with hydrogen can be used for marine applications. As
mentioned before there are many types of fuel cells available in the market. Each type
has different particulars as they differ in structure and materials (see appendix B). The
alkaline fuel cell (AFC) and PEMFC are two types suitable for hydrogen fuel cells.
PEMFC type (see figure 16) has a membrane by a polymeric material like (nafion).
That fuel cell has a high efficiency equal to 65% and low operating temperature to a
maximum of 100°C. Additionally, it has fast fire up and quick response in different
loads.
35
Figure 16: Typical Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (ABS, 2020b)
On the other hand, the AFC type uses a special solution as an electrolyte and
operates in higher temperatures reaching well over 200°C. Its efficiency is between
50-70% depending on the concentration of the used solution. This type needs pure
hydrogen and is susceptible to contamination (Markowski and Pielecha, 2019).
3.3.5 From LNG to Hydrogen
An alternative way to produce, store, and use hydrogen onboard in LNG carriers is
through steam reforming. The production occurs through the utilisation of BOG from
the LNG storage tanks. BOG excess goes to the reformer and reacts with steam in a
tubular reactor. The reactors’ tubes wall is covered by alumina or a nickel catalyst and
forms hydrogen. While at the tubes’ outlet is formed carbon dioxide. The temperature
of the process reaches around 900°C and pressure roughly 10 MPa. Next, the
produced hydrogen is stored in a cooled and pressurised system (see figure 17)
(Fernández et al., 2017).
36
Figure 17: Storage of pressurised and cooled H2 in a concentric tank, adapted from
(Fernández et al., 2020)
Then the hydrogen can be consumed in the dual-fuel propulsion engines. The most
convenient way to utilise hydrogen is in blends with natural gas. The existing injection
system can operate with a mixture of (30% H2 -70% CH4) without any modifications.
The hydrogen produced is enough to ensure autonomy for three days. Also, the CH4
engines’ consumption drops down by 11%. Finally, the vessel's operation becomes
more flexible (Fernández et al., 2020).
Cooperation between Wärtsilä, ABB, and class society RINA aims to adjust a steam
reforming plant on commercial vessels to accelerate shipping decarbonisation. The
produced H2 will feed ICE and fuel cells in mixtures with LNG, while the CO 2 will be
captured and stored to be delivered ashore. Oil tankers will use the stored CO 2 as
inert gas during cargo discharging operations. The system will be easily placed
onboard. Last but not least, the hydrogen storage problem will sort out (Wärtsilä,
2021).
37
Hydrogen is not yet established as fuel in the market. The costs are varying depend
on the production processes and location. For example, in 2020 the green hydrogen
cost $4,65/kg while the blue one was roughly $2/kg. 1 kg of hydrogen with $2 is equal
to $15/MMBtu. For the same year, the natural gas in spot market price was around
$1,85/MMBtu. Hence, green, and blue hydrogen production is not competitive with
the hydrogen production from natural gas. However, an uprise in hydrogen production
will significantly push down that cost (Kastner et al., 2020). Figure 18 shows a
prediction on the production costs of blue and green hydrogen derived from
Bloomberg NEF data.
Figure 18: Forecast global levels cost of hydrogen production from large projects
(Bloomberg NEF, 2020)
The future projections of other studies are similar. For instance, the International
Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) for 2050 considers $0,95/kg for hydrogen
produced from wind energy and $1,25 for hydrogen from solar energy (Noussan et
al., 2021).
The global production of hydrogen is higher than 50 million tons per annum. That
reaches the energy content of almost 150 million tons of fuel for vessels. Hydrogen’s
38
production is originated mostly from natural gas. A shift towards electrolysis will
remove the production limitations (DNV, 2019a). Covering the future energy demand
with hydrogen creates the demand for huge amounts of further electricity generation
from renewable resources. However, renewables can significantly expand to meet the
emission targets of IMO. Some countries like China and Japan may face land
restrictions to cover their demands. That will possibly lead to hydrogen trade between
countries or to invest more in blue hydrogen rather than green one. Another driver to
scale-up hydrogen production is more actions to be taken by countries towards
decarbonisation (Bloomberg NEF, 2020). Figure 19 shows different types of hydrogen
projects globally according to their scale for 2021.
Figure 19: Announced large-scale hydrogen projects, by type, October 2021 (The
Economist, 2021)
A good practice to flourish hydrogen production is the removal of obstacles for

hydrogen projects. Appendix F lists hydrogen projects internationally for 2021. That
can be combined with a solid legislation frame of countries on climate matters.
Similarly, to encourage manufacturers to produce goods through the usage of
hydrogen. In the same way, incentives for customers and consumers to buy them.
For instance, vessels powered by fuel cells or hydrogen for the maritime sector.
Finally, the fuel switching to hydrogen at a low cost will offer flexibility to upgrade
39
obsolete equipment. All these actions will emerge the shift towards a hydrogen
economy (Bloomberg NEF, 2020).
Hydrogen is not used widely as a maritime fuel. For that reason, it has not yet
developed specific regulations. The IGF Code gives a framework on low-flashpoint
fuels for marine fuels as hydrogen. It gives the foundation on the design approach for
vessels to comply when using gaseous fuels except for LNG. Fuel cell technology
rules are under development in the IGF Code. By the time they are covered by
temporary guidelines and will be added as an amendment in Chapter E of the IGF
Code. It is anticipated to enter into force in 2028. Regarding the hydrogen fuel storage
IMO has not yet develop a regulatory framework (DNV, 2021b).
Risk management for all the stages from production, transportation, and bunkering is
necessary. That is critical for successful projects and operations. Likewise, hydrogen
has high permeability due to its small molecules. That makes it easy to escape from
storage tanks and pipe connections (Buraeu Veritas, 2021). Another important issue
is the phenomenon of hydrogen embrittlement. When metals come in touch with
hydrogen, they lose their ductility and become vulnerable to cracks. That results from
the penetration of hydrogen atoms into the metal’s grids or defects (HyResponder,
2021). All these create the demand for the adoption of extra measures to mitigate
risks of leakage and explosion. These include the establishment of safety procedures,
ventilation, and detectors. Same, the installation of double pipping and inert gas
systems. Finally, the optimum storage space for a liquified hydrogen storage tank
onboard should be determined by risk analysis (Nerheim, Æsøy and Holmeset, 2021).
40
4. Environmental Impact of Alternative Fuels
4.1 Environmental Impact of LNG
LNG is continuously attracting attention in the marine industry for many reasons.
Regarding the environmental aspects, LNG significantly reduces air emissions.
Especially in emission control areas (ECA) with stricter regulations, the burn of LNG
can meet the demanding standards regarding the SOX and NOX emissions (Pavlenko
et al., 2020).
In more detail, engines burning LNG compared with conventional fuel engines
achieve the following reductions. In the case of passenger ships, the CO2 emissions
can be reduced by 31%, while on freight ships to around 28%. Moreover, the
emissions of SOX and PM are almost zero for the LNG burning. Finally, NOX emissions
reduction is significant, reaching well over 85% (Gil-Lopez and Verdu-Vazquez,
2021). In figure 20, there is a comparison between high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO), MDO,
and LNG regarding the CO2, NOX, and SOX emissions.
Figure 20: Emission comparison by fuel type (Muenster, 2019)
On the other hand, the release of unburned fossil methane in the atmosphere
(methane slip) has a negative environmental impact. As a result, it is one of the
culprits of global warming. For a 20-year period, methane has a global warming
potential (GWP) 86 times greater than CO2, and for 100 years 36 times respectively.
The major methane leaks in a vessel originate from the parts involved, from the
storage tanks to the cylinder heads. These include leaks from pumps, valves, filters,
and injectors. Moreover, during the engine’s operation at valve overlap, some
methane escapes into the atmosphere through the exhaust gases. Another part of the
41
methane slip is from inefficient combustion due to a poor mixture of fuel and air.
Furthermore, it escapes through the crankcase emissions because of worn piston
rings. Low pressure, four-stroke, medium speed, dual-fuel engines have the highest
methane slip with an average value of 5.5 gCH4/kWh. While the low pressure, two
stoke, slow speed, dual-fuel engines reach around 2.5 gCH4/kWh. Finally, the high
pressure, two stoke, slow speed, dual-fuel engines have the lowest methane slip of
0.2 gCH4/kWh (Pavlenko et al., 2020).
4.2 Environmental Impact of Ammonia
Ammonia as an alternative fuel has the potential to achieve improved environmental

performance. Ammonia does not include carbon in its molecule. Thus, its burning
produces zero CO2 emissions (Hendrik and Hektor, 2020). Moreover, it does not
contain sulphur, so its burning by-products have no SOX, and its use is suitable for
ECA areas. In addition, its soot and PMs emissions are insignificant. By contrast,
ammonia combustion produces NOX, and nitrous oxide (N2O), which are ozone-
depleting substances and accelerate the GHG effect. That creates the demand for
after-treatment technologies for the exhaust gasses to decrease their nitrogen
emissions (Alfa Laval et al., 2020). The best available solution in the market is
selective catalyst reduction (SCR), which is used widely in the marine industry. In the
SCR system, NOX is converted into N2 and H2O by the catalyst. NH3 acts as an agent
for the conversion process (MAN, 2022). A vessel with an ammonia fuelled engine
already has the agent and the handling infrastructure without additional costs. What
is more, the market has combined catalysts for both NOX and N2O. Their cost is similar
to the SCR catalysts used for conventional fuels (Alfa Laval et al., 2020).
Ammonia slip can occur either by the release of unburned ammonia into the
atmosphere or through the SCR catalyst. In cases of extensive slip, an oxidation
catalyst or an ammonia trap is necessary (Hansson, Fridell and Brynolf, 2020).
Already, there are mature technologies to control NH3, NOX, and N2O in the exhaust
gasses. But, that can affect both the cost and the engine efficiency (Fahnestock et al.,
2021). Ammonia is not a GHG, but it is toxic and harmful for living organisms. Thus,
ammonia slip must minimise through an appropriate air excess ratio. It should be
above 1 for all fuel particles to be burned completely. On the contrary, if the air excess
ratio is too high, then the excess of air can cause misfiring. Further, valve overlap,
42
and fuel injection timing must be well adjusted. That will prevent fuel from escaping
from the exhaust valve into the atmosphere (Vries, 2019).
4.3 Environmental Impact of Hydrogen
The production of green hydrogen, from renewable electricity combined with a

systematised supply chain, can make it a low emission alternative marine fuel. Also,
blue hydrogen originated from natural gas with CCS is an alternative approach with
relatively low environmental impact (DNV, 2019a). Table six depicts the emissions
from blue and green hydrogen production.
Table 6: Blue and green hydrogen production emissions (Lloyd’s Register, 2019)
Emission compound Hydrogen from natural Hydrogen from

gas with CCS renewable electricity
Carbon dioxide CO2 (t.em/t.fp) 10.73 0.2036

Methane CH4 (g.em/t.fp) 66,260 3.762
Nitrous oxide N2O (g.em/t.fp) 38.52 11.91
Oxides of nitrogen NOx (kg.em/t.fp) 13.17 1.254
Oxides of sulphur SOx (kg.em/t.fp) 8.854 0.1365
Particulate matter PM (g.em/t.fp) 758.0 162.3
The use of hydrogen in fuel cells produces CO2 emissions. Additionally, it has no NOX,
SOX, and PM emissions. While the burning of hydrogen in ICE there is a significant
reduction in GHG emissions. Of course, ICE link with NOX emissions, except if they
are not dual-fuel (DNV, 2019a). As mentioned before, that can be tread by installing
EGR and SCR systems.
Hydrogen released to the environment due to a leak does not threaten the
atmosphere since the earth’s gravity cannot hold it. It elevates and escapes out into
space. Moreover, hydrogen as a chemical substance is not toxic to humans and other
organisms (ABS, 2021a). Hence the main concern on hydrogen is its generation
emissions rather than its combustion emissions. Pure hydrogen combustion produces
water as a by-product. On the other hand, when hydrogen production is based on the
burning of fossil fuels, the CO2 emissions cause a negative environmental impact. As
43
a result, the industry should focus on green hydrogen formation as it has the cleanest
environmental production and combustion cycles (Nowotny and Veziroglu, 2011).
44
5. Current State, Challenges, and Future Perspectives
5.1 Ships Running on Alternative Fuels
5.1.1 LNG Fuelled Ships
Today, LNG is the most established alternative fuel. In October 2021, based on
Clarksons data, 1/3 of the total gross tonnage of orders will be fuelled by LNG. That
means maritime companies are willing to accelerate the global maritime
decarbonisation effort. There are already existing container vessels using LNG as
fuel. Companies like CMA CGM and MSC invest funds in LNG-powered vessels.
Additionally, companies from the cruise industry like Carnival and MSC Cruises have
already ships powered by LNG (TotalEnergies, 2021).
5.1.2 Ammonia Fuelled Ships
Vessels fuelled by ammonia are under development and very close to

commercialisation. The project M/S NoGAPS focuses on green ammonia use as fuel
in ICE. The vessel’s operation has been planned for 2024 (Fahnestock et al., 2021).
Another similar project is Viking Energy, where a small supply vessel will be retrofit
with SOFC, fuelled by ammonia. The project will be complete in 2024. Pilot projects
like these will significantly contribute to the establishment of ammonia as an
alternative marine fuel. Moreover, many shipowners have turned their interest to
retrofit other ship types like bulk carriers and tankers (DNV, 2021c).
5.1.3 Hydrogen Fuelled Ships
Last years, hydrogen is taking momentum as fuel for ships both in ICE and in fuel cell
systems. The project Flagships is a vessel fuelled with CGH2 (compressed hydrogen)
utilising fuel cell technology. It will be ready in 2022. Initially, the technology will have
application in a push boat. Then it will transfer to larger cargo vessels, such as bulk
carriers (Comer et al., 2022). What is more, the inland vessel Hydroville is the first
vessel using hydrogen in ICE since 2017. The use of hydrogen in ICE is planned for
tugboats initially and then in larger ships like bulk carriers. Currently, two-stroke and
45
four-stroke engines are under development to utilise liquified or compressed
hydrogen. A scale-up in hydrogen commercialisation is on the way (DNV, 2021c).
5.2 Challenges and Future Perspectives
5.2.1 Fuel Volume Versus Cargo Volume
The weight and volume capacity are a top priority in all forms of transportation. The
use of fuels characterised by high volumetric and gravimetric energy density can
increase the ships’ carrying payload. Consequently, a vessel that uses a high energy
density fuel has more profit potential through its optimised transportation capacity
(Xing et al., 2021a). Figure 21 compares the energy density of liquid hydrogen (LGH2),
CGH2, LNG, NH3, and MGO.
Figure 21: Fuels’ volumetric and gravimetric energy densities (Grzegorz Pawelec, 2021)
MGO has the optimum volumetric density, followed by LNG and ammonia. While
liquid or compressed gas hydrogen has the lowest volumetric density compared to all
the other fuels. That means hydrogen can have applications only in ship types like
Roll-on/Roll-off Passenger (Ro-Pax) ferries and short-distance ships. Larger
46
commercial vessels can use ammonia as fuel. It is CO2 free and combines better
volumetric and gravimetric density ratios. Afterward, LNG has a good balance of
gravimetric and volumetric energy density. On the other hand, it has a low impact on
CO2 emissions reduction and a high GWP (Xing et al., 2021a). The implementation
of alternative fuels inevitably will lead to altering the ships’ design to accommodate
the cargo fuel tanks and the fuel systems. For a deeper understanding of the
modifications that must occur, it will be helpful to mention the storage volumes
required for each fuel. Table 7 compares the storage volume ratio of alternative fuels
to low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO). Also, it shows the GHG emission reduction of
alternative fuels compared to VLSFO. Data came from the fuels' LHV and density
(ABS, 2021b).
Table 7: Comparison of fuels storage volume and other characteristics (ABS, 2021b)
Density Storage Vessel Specific GHG

Fuel Type LHV (kJ/kg)
(kg/m3) Volume Ratio Emissions (g/kWh)1
VLSFO (ref) 41,600 944 1.0 568 (ref)
LNG 50,000 420 1.9 424 (-25%)
NH3 18,800 674 3.6 102 (-82%)
LH2 120,000 71 4.6 0 (-100 %)
The fuel storage tank size of an LNG-powered ship must be double of a VLSFO tank
to cover the vessel’s same energy demands. Next, ammonia needs about 3.5 times
larger fuel storage tank than VLSFO. Lastly, liquid hydrogen requires the largest tank
size. That is owing to its low volumetric density. It requires around 4.5 times larger in
comparison to VLSFO. Clearly low, and zero-carbon fuels have significantly lower
GHG emissions compared to conventional ones. On the contrary, they require larger
tank volumes compared to fossil fuels. Hence the available cargo space will be
decreased, or vessels with larger sizes must be constructed. That parameter has to
consider seriously in a techno-economic feasibility study (ABS, 2021b).
47
5.2.2 Fuel Supply in Tramp and Liner Trade
Alternative marine fuels establishment requires abundance, accessibility, and

sufficient bunkering infrastructure (Hydrogen Europe, 2021). Liner trade can adopt
easier the use of alternative fuels. That is because of the standardised geographical
operations area and the well-scheduled routes and port calls. Same, the vessels
which operate in short-sea shipping are early adopters of new fuels and technologies
due to the constant port calls and short routes. On the other hand, tramp trade does
not have a fixed schedule or port calls, especially the vessels of deep-sea shipping
with long routes. These cause issues in their bunkering as they require a global
bunkering infrastructure. Moreover, their fuel should have the highest possible energy
density to optimise their cargo capacity (DNV, 2019a).
Among the alternative fuels, LNG has the largest marine infrastructure. It is reaching
almost 8 million tons/year. Although its infrastructure is small compared to
conventional fuels, it has the potential of scalability in liner and tramp shipping
markets. Experience built from LNG can act as a driver to the adoption of other
alternative fuels too (ABS, 2019). Practically LNG can support vessels with long
bunker intervals. These vessels can operate on both liner and tramp trade (DNV,
2021c). Table 8 shows the bunkering intervals for different marine fuels.
Table 8: Bunkering intervals for different type of fuels (DNV, 2019b)
Hydrogen has very short bunkering intervals as fuel. Thus, it is not a solution for tramp
trade. However, CGH2 has strong potential on inland passenger ships as they operate
on fixed routes and access fixed bunkering points. In addition, LGH2 can be used in
larger ships in liner trade like Ro-Pax ferries to cover their higher power demand
(Grzegorz Pawelec, 2021). Ammonia has an expanded process industry for other
48
uses. That experience is easily transferable to the marine terminals and ports for
bunkering purposes (ABS, 2019). Also, it can be used as a hydrogen carrier and fuel
in deep-sea shipping. Ammonia has a higher volumetric energy density compared to
hydrogen. Finally, due to the complicated needs of the marine industry, it is possible
for different ship types to operate in different fuels. That will enable them to maximise
their benefits (Georgeff et al., 2020).
5.2.3 Regulation and Legislation Gaps
The alternative marine fuels originating both from hydrocarbons and renewable
energy resources must be officially certified. That will validate and assure their green
resources in chemically same fuels, like hydrogen and ammonia. By the time rules by
the classification societies are under development for many of the alternative fuels.
LNG has a more advanced infrastructure compared to the other alternative fuels. Still,
does not exist a harmonised regulatory framework. LNG bunkering rules are applied
individually to every port. These act as obstacles to the establishment of alternative
fuels (Horton et al., 2022). The IGF Code includes rules only on the utilisation of LNG
as a marine fuel. Regarding hydrogen and ammonia, there is a lack of specific
regulations. That imposes challenges on the safety design for the systems of these
fuels. The adoption of risk assessment types originating from high-hazard industries
can be an approach to tackle these problems (Davies, 2022).
National legislations need to identify the international standards in their adoptions.

The existing national standards should be replaced by the widest spectrum of
international superior standards (DNV, 2021b) It is necessary the creation of solid
legislation frameworks by policymakers. That will facilitate the coupling of alternative
fuels with their market availability (IRENA, 2019).
5.2.4 Future Perspectives
LNG has many environmental benefits compared to other fossil fuels, but it cannot
comply with future strict targets. In the short-term, LNG can act as a bridge alternative
fuel due to its extended infrastructure compared to zero-carbon fuels. Marine diesel
engines have adequately developed to burn LNG. Ammonia appears to be an
emerging alternative fuel with considerable decarbonisation potential (Herdzik, 2021).
49
MAN B&W will commercialise two-stroke slow-speed engines which run on ammonia
in 2024. Challenges like toxicity and slow flame velocity delay its establishment as a
marine fuel. However, many of the ammonia problems have already been resolved.
Undoubtedly, ammonia will play a key role as fuel in the decarbonisation process
(MAN, 2020). Apart from ammonia, the other alternative option of zero-carbon fuel is
hydrogen. Hydrogen has the largest perspective on GHG emissions reduction.
However, its technological readiness is low. Hydrogen will be a long-term solution in
the decarbonisation process as it needs further development. Technical maturity,
enhanced infrastructure, and availability are some of the hydrogen's issues. The
solutions to these problems will make hydrogen a sustainable marine fuel. Hence, the
decarbonisation problem is multidimensional and requires a combined fuel approach.
LNG and then ammonia will be the prominent alternative fuels until hydrogen
flourishes (Andersson et al., 2020).
50
6. Research Methods
In this research, a mixed method will use to achieve more reliable results. The mixed
method includes collection, evaluation, and combination, of both quantitative and
qualitative data. That way enhances the understanding of the research topic. The
research excessively depends on the literature review. That results from the nature of
the selected topic. Nevertheless, it is supported by a targeted questionnaire to
maritime professionals and experts with quantified results. Questions have been
structured in such a way to cover the key facets of alternative fuels. Lastly, the
questionnaire enables a chance to access the knowledge of the maritime
professionals on shipping decarbonisation.
6.1 Data Collection
The data was collected through a literature review from multiple different sources.
Main sources include maritime organisations, classification societies, articles, reports,
whitepapers, and books. Most data came from recognised sources like Lloyd's
Register, ABS, and DNV, classification societies. Moreover, some data was collected
from leading innovative companies on alternative fuels. These include MAN, Wärtsilä,
and Alfa Laval.
The questionnaire was distributed to 25 maritime professionals, both working offshore

in vessels and onshore in company offices and organisations. The individuals consist
of chief engineers, superintendent engineers, fleet performance engineers, technical
advisors, and marine sustainability experts. Since the answers will come from multiple
professionals and experts, it will also give their different perspectives. That approach
will enable a broader view of the different spectrums of the shipping industry and more
reliable results.
6.2 Questionnaire
The questionnaire (see appendix G) includes five questions and a section for
comments. It formed upon the research of the literature review. The questionnaire's
format is simple and targeted to deepen the knowledge of the subject. It is anonymous
to empower the responders to express their opinions freely without fear of revealing
51
confidential information about their companies. The motivations behind each question
are the following:
1. Do you believe that IMO’s initial greenhouse gas strategy on international shipping
emissions reduction is achievable by 2050?
This question is about the IMO's GHG strategy. It aims to find whether the target of
IMO is realistic and attainable by 2050. That question gives the views of the maritime
professionals regarding the decarbonisation schedule.
2. Which alternative fuel is likely to be more attractive to the maritime industry for
decarbonisation in the long-term?
This question gathers information regarding the most predominant fuel in the future
from 2030 and then. There are many different fuels under consideration. However,
answers will give the main industry trends on future fuel choices.
3. If the fuel storage tanks of [VLSFO] have a storage volume ratio equal to 1. How
many more times do you believe that shipowners are willing to increase the size of
fuel storage tanks to accommodate alternative fuels?
It is well known that alternative fuels' have lower volumetric density than conventional
fuels. The responses to this question will reveal the cargo volume that can be
sacrificed by shipowners for the storage of alternative fuels.
4. What do you believe can be the most effective way to accelerate the transition of
international shipping to greener fuels?
Different factors can form the shipping decarbonisation pathway. The purpose of this
question is to identify the optimum way to enhance the shift towards cleaner fuels.
That will come from maritime professionals' views.
Which is the main driver for developing alternative fuels' bunkering infrastructure?
Bunkering is a routine operation in all ships in shorter or longer intervals. Fuel

availability is one of the main challenges for all alternative fuels. This question aims
to collect opinions on the main factor, to establish a global bunkering infrastructure.
52
7. Findings and Discussion
This part provides the findings and analysis of the results of the questionnaire.
Moreover, it gives a critical discussion of the research findings. It compares literature
and professional views on the alternative fuels for shipping decarbonisation.
7.1 Findings of professionals’ responses
For a deeper understanding of the topic, questionnaire results link with some
comments from maritime professionals.
1. Do you believe that IMO’s initial greenhouse gas strategy on international

shipping emissions reduction is achievable by 2050?
25 responses
Figure 22: IMO’s initial GHG strategy feasibility (Author 2022)
Almost three out of four maritime professionals believe that IMO’s GHG strategy is
feasible by 2050. 16% of the responders said no, while 8% of responders did not have
a view.
2. Which alternative fuel is likely to be more attractive to the maritime industry for
25 responses
53
Figure 23: Alternative fuel choice (Author 2022)
Most maritime professionals (40%) responded that LNG will be the fuel choice in the
long-term. One-third of the responders support that hydrogen will be the future fuel.
Only 16% replied that ammonia could be used as fuel for ships in the future. Finally,
12% of the responders believe that other fuels will dominate over the long-term. These
include methanol, synthetic hydrocarbons based on hydrogen, and biofuels.
Maritime professional comment: ‘‘From the impact assessment of the “Fuel EU

Maritime Proposal” issued for the European Commission it is estimated that 87% to
89% of energy sources in shipping will be renewable or low-carbon fuels by 2050 and
the majority, between 39% to 48%, will be biofuels.’’
3. If the fuel storage tanks of [VLSFO] have a storage volume ratio equal to 1. How
many more times do you believe that shipowners are willing to increase the size of
fuel storage tanks to accommodate alternative fuels?
25 responses
54
Figure 24: Maximum fuel storage tanks volume size (Author 2022)
52% of the maritime professionals believe that shipowners will likely double the
volume of their ships' fuel storage tanks to use alternative fuels. Almost 30% of the
professionals assume that shipowners can triple the fuel storage tanks. 12% believe
that the bunker tanks can become four times larger to store cleaner fuels with lower
volumetric density. Finally, only 4% of the responders suppose that tanks can reach
five times the size of conventional fuel storage tanks.
Maritime professional comment: ‘‘For some ships, space is there and just needs to be
utilised. Take methanol as an example: it is not considered as harmful to the
environment as mineral oils and therefore can be stored in outer tanks where space
can be freed which used to serve as cofferdam for oil tanks.’’
Another maritime professional comment: ‘‘I work in wind-assisted propulsion, and we

have noticed a huge increase in interest towards this technology during 2021. Wind-
assisted propulsion reduces the fuel requirement of the vessel by 10-50%, thus
limiting the tank size increase necessary for alternative fuels. Wind-assisted
propulsion and alternative fuels are complementary. ’’
4. What do you believe can be the most effective way to accelerate the transition of
25 responses
55
Figure 25: Transition paths to alternative fuels (Author 2022)
36% of the responders believe that economic support to the shipowners and operators
will facilitate the transition to alternative fuels. Almost one-third supposes that carbon
pricing will enhance the turn to cleaner fuels. Next, 20% of maritime professionals
consider that tighter rules and regulations on air emissions will promote greener fuels.
Last, the minority of responders (16%) believe that the cooperation of authorities and
industry is necessary for alternative fuels to gain momentum.
Maritime professional comment: ‘‘Global framework is required to accelerate

transition with specific objectives to create the roadmap of shipping decarbonisation
pathways.’’
5. Which is the main driver for developing alternative fuels' bunkering infrastructure?
25 responses
Figure 26: Bunkering infrastructure development (Author 2022)
56
Almost one in two maritime professionals replied that the economic factors are
dominant to establish bunkering infrastructure networks for alternative fuels. A quarter
of the maritime professionals believe that environmental factors are vital to developing
a large-scale infrastructure on the availability of alternative fuels. 16% believe that
political factors will determine the availability of alternative fuel bunkering
infrastructure. Finally, 12% replied that technological factors are the key to the
development of bunkering stations.
7.2 Discussion
It is well known transoceanic vessels require large amounts of energy for their
propulsion and operations. Conventional fuels have a high volumetric energy density.
It is enough to cover the vessels’ power and propulsion demands for several days.
On the other hand, fossil fuel emissions have a negative environmental impact. For
that reason, IMO formed a strategic vision with many initiatives on emissions
reduction by 2050. MARPOL is the main international convention adopted by IMO to
eliminate marine environment pollution. Already many measures have been applied
by MARPOL Annex VI on air emission prevention. In addition, escalating measures
have been introduced for the next decades to reach the IMO’s target by 2050. The
research reveals that the target of IMO is feasible by 2050 as the applied measures
already have positive results. Similarly, most maritime professionals believe that the
target is attainable by 2050.
Fuel choice is of high importance in shipping decarbonisation. Fuel-burning is

responsible for most harmful air emissions. The research focused on three alternative
fuels LNG, ammonia, and hydrogen. LNG is the most established alternative fuel with
good environmental performance regarding air emissions. The main drawbacks of
LNG are the methane slip and the CO2 emitted from its combustion. Several shipping
companies invest in newbuilt ships fuelled by LNG to comply with the IMO’s medium-
term measures. The majority of maritime professionals believes that LNG will also be
a long-term fuel in shipping decarbonisation. That is achievable through other forms
of LNG like bio-LNG and e-LNG, in pure form or in blends with fossil LNG. The burning
of fossil LNG emits about 25% less CO2 compared to other fossil fuels. Yet, this is not
enough to reach the IMO’s target of 2050. On the contrary, ammonia is zero-carbon
fuel with low environmental issues and easy storage. Nevertheless, it is toxic and
hazardous for humans and living organisms. Possibly, this is the main reason that a
57
lot of maritime professionals do not prefer it as an alternative fuel. Hydrogen seems
like a very promising fuel for the future. The environmental performance of hydrogen
is very high with a small environmental footprint and becomes even smaller when the
production relies on renewable energy resources. Its main issues are the storage and
the high flammability. Tackling these limitations requires further technological
development. Many maritime professionals expressed that hydrogen will be the fuel
of the future.
Cargo volume is of high importance in shipping. It is directly linked with economies of

scale. When the available cargo space increases, the cost per transported unit
decreases. Hence, it is reasonable for shipowners to hesitate to sacrifice cargo space
to store fuels with lower volumetric densities. The literature research shows that
innovative technologies like the onboard production of hydrogen from LNG can solve
the storage issues of hydrogen. In the same way, a maritime professional commented
that supplement technologies, like wind-assisted propulsion, can decrease the
required volume tank. Of course, for some ship types, space optimisation can create
the extra required space to accommodate alternative fuels. Finally, apart from the
volume of fuel storage tanks, fuel properties determine the possible storage locations
for each type of ship.
Alternative fuels establishment depends on multiple factors. The research proves that
the transition requires a multifaceted approach at different levels. An implication of
stricter rules and regulations combined with carbon pricing schemes on air emissions
can bring shipping closer to the decarbonisation target. The above must be
accompanied by financial aid to the shipowners and operators. Moreover, the
cooperation between authorities and industry stakeholders will enable a solid and
smoother transition. That is also reflected in the responses of maritime professionals.
Their answers cover many different aspects.
A vital part of shipping decarbonisation is the accessibility to alternative fuels. Each

ship type operates in specific areas. That directly affects the fuel options for
bunkering. Bunkering infrastructure differs between places. Ports have been designed
to accommodate vessels relevant to their commercial activities. Nevertheless,
according to the research, the main factor that will forward the development of
bunkering infrastructure is the economic factor. Further, most maritime professionals
expressed that view. Obviously, there are other factors too that contribute to the
availability and scalability of alternative fuels. But to a lesser extent. For instance,
technological maturity and environmental aspects have a serious role too. Finally,
58
political decisions can accelerate or retard the formation of bunkering infrastructure
globally.
From the above, the views of maritime professionals agree with the findings of the
literature.
59
8. Conclusions
It is apparent that the shipping industry progressively changing. New technologies are
emerged by the enforcement of decarbonisation targets. Moreover, they force
shipowners and operators to look for alternative fuel choices to propel and power their
ships. Many reports have discussed the hazards of the burning of conventional fuels.
These include environmental and human hazards. The target of IMO to minimise the
harmful air emissions from shipping by the end of the century is continuously
accelerating with positive outcomes.
LNG is already used as a marine fuel to comply with the short-term emission goals of
IMO. Also, it is gaining momentum on medium-term goals as it eliminates SOX and
PMs emissions. Nevertheless, methane slip from engines or during bunkering
operations is a drawback. LNG might be used as long-term fuel, probably in blends
with non-fossil methane.
Ammonia is a less mature fuel in the shipping industry. However, it is a zero-carbon

fuel that will enter service around 2030. Safety issues like corrosion and toxicity are
its main challenges. Additionally, the technologies to support ammonia fuelled vessels
are under development. On the other hand, ammonia’s existing infrastructure can be
used as a basis for the development of bunker locations globally. Finally, ammonia is
a hydrogen carrier fuel that can decompose into pure hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a zero-carbon fuel too that attracts global interest. It satisfies the IMO’s
long-term goals, as it has very low air emissions. It is environmentally friendly and
non-toxic. Nonetheless, its commercialisation is still in its early stages. Hydrogen’s
major challenges are its high flammability and its liquid state storage. Yet, it has great
decarbonisation potential as fuel in the long-term.
Production of zero-carbon fuels from renewable energy resources plus CCS

technologies utilisation significantly reduce the environmental footprint. Green
ammonia and hydrogen are the cleanest ways of fuel production with the minimum
environmental footprint. In contrast, zero-carbon fuels require larger storage space
due to their low volumetric energy density.
From a regulatory point of view, IGF Code requires amendments to enable zero-
carbon fuels utilisation as fuel for ships. The rules on ammonia carrier vessels crated
by classification societies can further develop to include ammonia and hydrogen as
fuels for ships.
60
Alternative fuels offer a range of solutions to decarbonise shipping. Each fuel has
different properties and requires special handling. Likewise, there are various types
and sizes of ships with different areas of trading activities. That creates the demand
for fuel flexibility to facilitate decarbonisation. As a result, combined bunkering
infrastructures are necessary to support alternative fuels availability. Next decades,
alternative fuels will have a key role in shipping decarbonisation.
61
9. Recommendations
The research findings of this project bring out some topics that require further
research. The recommended areas for more detailed research are the following:
 Implementation of national strategies for the adoption of low-carbon and zero-

carbon fuels.
 Standardisation of the production methods for green ammonia and green

hydrogen to create a solid commercialised supply chain.
 Financial investments in the scalability of production and bunkering

infrastructure of the alternative fuels to reduce their costs.
 Financial support schemes for shipowners and operators who invest in

decarbonisation technologies to utilise alternative fuels.
 Strong collaborations between shipping companies, ports, and fuel suppliers

to formulate a solid path towards decarbonisation.
Word Count: 13,941
62
10. References
ABS (2014) ‘LNG Bunkering : Technical and Operational Advisory’, American

Bureau of Shipping, Vol. 01(Mixed Sources), p. 25. Available at:
http://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/publications/2015/LNG_Bunkering
Advisory.pdf.
ABS (2019) ‘Setting the Course to Low Carbon Shipping Outlook’, American Bureau
of Shipping. Available at: https://danskemaritime.dk/wp-
content/uploads/2018/07/low-carbon-shipping-outlook.pdf.
ABS (2020a) ‘Ammonia as Marine Fuel - Sustainability Whitepaper’, American

Bureau of Shipping. Available at: https://safety4sea.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/Ammonia_as_Marine_Fuel_Whitepaper_20188.pdf.
ABS (2020b) ‘Setting the Course to Low Carbon Shipping - Pathways to Sustainable
Shipping’, American Bureau of Shipping. Available at:
https://absinfo.eagle.org/acton/attachment/16130/f-c1979537-0fdb-4f55-85cb-
7d50deafe1cc/1/-/-/-/-/ABS Sustainability Outlook II_Pathways_low-res.pdf.
ABS (2021a) ‘Hydrogen as Marine Fuel’, American Bureau of Shipping,

Sustainability Whitepaper, (June). Available at: https://maritimecyprus.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/06/ABS-hydrogen-as-marine-fuel.pdf.
ABS (2021b) ‘Setting the Course to Low Carbon Shipping - Wiew of the Value
Chain’, American Bureau of Shipping. All. Available at: https://safety4sea.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/ABS-Setting-the-Course-to-Low-Carbon-Shipping-View-of-
the-Value-Chain-2021_04.pdf.
Alfa Laval, Hanfia, Haldor Topsøe, Vestas and Siemens Gamesa (2020) Ammonfuel
- An Industrial View of Ammonia as a Marine Fuel, Hafnia BW. Available at:
https://hafniabw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Ammonfuel-Report-an-industrial-
view-of-ammonia-as-a-marine-fuel.pdf.
Alfa Laval (2020) ‘Reducing NOX Emissions from ship exhaust - An Alfa Laval White
Paper on Exhaust Gas Recirculation’, Alfa Laval, (January), p. 20. Available at:
https://www.alfalaval.com/globalassets/documents/products/process-
solutions/marine-exhaust-gas-solutions/purenox/reducing-nox-emissions-from-ship-
exhaust_white-paper_en.pdf.
63
Ampah, J. D., Yusuf, A. A., Afrane, S., Jin, C. and Liu, H. (2021) ‘Reviewing Two
Decades of Cleaner Alternative Marine Fuels: Towards IMO’s Decarbonization of
the Maritime Transport Sector’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 320 (August), p.
128871. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128871.
Andersson, K., Brynolf S., Hansson, J. and Grahn, M. (2020) ‘Criteria and Decision
Support for a Sustainable Choice of Alternative Marine Fuels’, Sustainability
(Switzerland), 12(9), pp. 1–23. doi: 10.3390/su12093623.
Arefin, M. A., Nabi, M. N., Akram, M. W., Islam, M. T. and Chowdhury, M. W. (2020)
‘A Review on Liquefied Natural Gas as Fuels for Dual Fuel Engines: Opportunities,
Challenges and Responses’, Energies, 13(22). doi: 10.3390/en13226127.
Balcombe, P., Brierley, J., Lewis, C., Skatvedt, L., Speirs, J., Hawkes, A. and
Staffell, I. (2019) ‘How to Decarbonise International Shipping: Options for Fuels,
Technologies and Policies’, Energy Conversion and Management, 182 (January),
pp. 72–88. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.12.080.
Bloomberg NEF (2020) ‘Hydrogen Economy Outlook’, Bloomberg New Energy

Finance, p. 12. Available at:
https://data.bloomberglp.com/professional/sites/24/BNEF-Hydrogen-Economy-
Outlook-Key-Messages-30-Mar-2020.pdf.
Bourne, S. and Remme, U. (2019) ‘The Future of Hydrogen, Seizing Today’s

Opportunities’, IEA. Available at:
https://www.hydrogenexpo.com/media/9370/the_future_of_hydrogen_iea.pdf.
Bru, T. and Rotevatn, S. (2020) ‘The Norwegian Government’s Hydrogen Strategy

Towards a Low Emission Society’, Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy &
Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment Strategy, pp. 1–73. Available at:
http://www.arctichttps//www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/8ffd54808d7e42e8bce813
40b13b6b7d/hydrogenstrategien-engelsk.pdf.
Buraeu Veritas (2021) ‘Hydrogen: Developing the Value Chain For Sustainably
Produced Energy’, Bureau Veritas. Available at: https://middle-
east.bureauveritas.com/sites/g/files/zypfnx316/files/media/document/Hydrogen_WP
_WEB_Final.pdf.
Cames, M., Wissner, N., Sutter, J., Hendrik, B. and Hektor, E. A. (2021) ‘Ammonia
as a Marine Fuel, Risks and perspectives’, Öko-Institut e.V., (June), pp. 1–28.
Available at: httphttps://en.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/verkehr/210622-
64
nabu-study-ammonia-marine-fuel.pdf.
Cardoso, J. S., Silva, V., Rocha, R. C., Hall, M. J., Costa, M. and Eusébio, D. (2021)
‘Ammonia as an Energy Vector: Current and Future Prospects for Low-carbon Fuel
Applications in Internal Combustion Engines’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 296.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126562.
Chiong, M. C., Kang, H. S., Shaharuddin, N. M. R., Mat, S., Quen, L. K., Ten, K. H.
and Ong, M. C. (2021) ‘Challenges and Opportunities of Marine Propulsion with
Alternative Fuels’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 149 (November
2020), p. 111397. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111397.
Collet, P., Flottes, E., Favre, A., Raynal, L., Pierre, H., Capela, S. and Peregrina, C.
(2017) ‘Techno-economic and Life Cycle Assessment of Methane Production via
Biogas Upgrading and Power to Gas Technology’, Applied Energy, 192, pp. 282–
295. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.181.
Comer, B., Georgeff, E., Stolz, D., Mao, X. and Osipova, L. (2022) ‘Decarbonizing
Bulk Carriers with Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Wind-Assisted Propulsion: a Modeled
Case Study Analysis’, The International Council on Clean Transportation, (January).
Available at: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Hydrogen-and-
propulsion-ships-jan22.pdf.
Corbetti, C., Gallottini, R., Bombardi, A. and Lucci, A. (2021) ‘The Colours of
Hydrogen Routes (The Many Shades of Hydrogen)’, RINA, pp. 1–16. Available at:
https://shared.rina.org/SCresources/Documents/The colors of Hydrogen routes-
11032021.pdf.
Davies, P. A. (2022) ‘Acceptance of Hydrogen and Ammonia as Fuel for Ships:

Inherently Safer Design’, Safety and Reliability, pp. 1–6. doi:
10.1080/09617353.2022.2028438.
DNV (2015) ‘LNG as Ship Fuel: The Future - Today’, DNV GL, 1(01), pp. 1–60.
Available at: https://www.dnv.com/Images/LNG_report_2015-01_web_tcm8-
13833.pdf.
DNV (2019a) ‘Assessment of Selected Alternative Fuels and Tecchnlologies’, DNV

GL – Maritime, 391(June), pp. 1–48. Available at:
https://sustainableworldports.org/wp-content/uploads/DNV-GL_2018_Assessment-
of-selected-alternative-fuels-and-tech-report.pdf.
65
DNV (2019b) ‘Maritime Forecast To 2050 - Energy Transition Outlook 2019’, DNV,
p. 118. Available at: https://sustainableworldports.org/wp-content/uploads/DNV-
GL_2019_Maritime-forecast-to-2050-Energy-transition-Outlook-2019-report.pdf.
DNV (2021a) ‘Ammonia Bunkering of Passenger Vessel - Concept Quantitative Risk

Assessment, Coastal Shipping Programme (Grønt Skipfartsprogram)’, DNV AS
Energy Systems Safety Risk Management. Available at:
https://grontskipsfartsprogram.no/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Ammonia-bunkering-
of-passenger-vessel-Concept-quantitative-risk-assessment.pdf.
DNV (2021b) ‘Handbook for Hydrogen-Fuelled Vessels’, DNV, pp. 1–108. Available
at: https://www.iims.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Handbook_for_hydrogen-
fuelled_vessels.pdf.
DNV (2021c) ‘Maritime Forecast To 2050 - Energy Transition Outlook 2021’, DNV,
p. 118. Available at: https://www.naucher.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/09/DNV_Maritime_Forecast_2050_2021-Web.pdf.
Enviu, C-Job and Proton Ventures (2019) ‘Ammonia as a Fuel for the Maritime
Industry’, Enviu, C-Job, Proton Ventures. Available at: https://thrust.enviu.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/Ammonia-as-a-fuel-for-the-maritime-industry-short.pdf.
Fahnestock, J., Søgaard, K., Lawson, E., Kilemo, H., Stott, C. F. and Stott, S. F.
(2021) ‘NoGAPS : Nordic Green Ammonia Powered Ship’, Nordic Innovation, pp. 1–
70. Available at: https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/content/2021/06/The-Nordic-
Green-Ammonia-Powered-Ship-_Project-Report.pdf.
Fahnestock, J. and Bingham, C. (2021) ‘Mapping of Zero Emission Pilots and

Demonstration Projects’, Getting to Zero Coalition, (March), p. 127. Available at:
https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/content/2021/03/Mapping-of-Zero-Emission-
Pilots-and-Demonstration-Projects-Second-edition.pdf.
Fernández, I. A., Gómez, M. R., Gómez, J. R. and López-González, L. M. (2017) ‘H2

Production by the Steam Reforming of Excess Boil Off Gas on LNG Vessels’,
Energy Conversion and Management, 134, pp. 301–313. doi:
10.1016/j.enconman.2016.12.047.
Fernández, I. A., Gómez, M. R., Gómez, J. R. and López-González, L. M. (2020)

‘Generation of H2 on Board LNG Vessels for Consumption in the Propulsion
System’, Polish Maritime Research, 27(1), pp. 83–95. doi: 10.2478/pomr-2020-
0009.
66
Foretich, A., Zaimes, G. G., Hawkins, T. R. and Newes, E. (2021) ‘Challenges and
Opportunities for Alternative Fuels in the Maritime Sector’, Maritime Transport
Research, 2(August), p. 100033. doi: 10.1016/j.martra.2021.100033.
Forsyth, A. (2022) All at Sea - Methanol and Shipping- Industry Background from
Longspur Research. Edinburgh. Available at:
file:///C:/Users/grivo/Desktop/Methanol-and-Shipping-2501221.pdf.
Foss, M. M. (2012) Introduction to LNG: An Overview on Liquefied Natural Gas

(LNG), its Properties , the LNG Industry, and Safety Considerations. Center for
Energy Economics. Houston, Texas. Available at:
https://www.beg.utexas.edu/files/cee/legacy/INTRODUCTION TO LNG Update
2012.pdf.
Fridell, E. (2019) Emissions and Fuel Use in the Shipping Sector, Green Ports:
Inland and Seaside Sustainable Transportation Strategies. Elsevier Inc. doi:
10.1016/B978-0-12-814054-3.00002-5.
GEI (2021) ‘Hydrogen – Data Telling a Story’, Global Energy Infrastructure.

Available at: https://globalenergyinfrastructure.com/articles/2021/03-
march/hydrogen-data-telling-a-story/.
Georgeff, E., Mao, X., Rutherford, D. and Osipova, L. (2020) ‘Liquid Hydrogen
Refueling Infrastructure to Support a zero-emission U.S.-China Container Shipping
Corridor’, International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), (October). Available
at: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ZEV-port-infra-hydrogren-
oct2020.pdf.
Giernalczyk, M. (2019) ‘Analysis of the Possibility of Using Low Speed Two-Stroke

Dual-Fuel Engines for Propulsion of Sea-Going Vessels’, Journal of Kones, 26(2),
pp. 45–52. doi: 10.2478/kones-2019-0031.
Gil-Lopez, T. and Verdu-Vazquez, A. (2021) ‘Environmental Analysis of the Use of

Liquefied Natural Gas in Maritime Transport within the Port Environment’,
Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(21). doi: 10.3390/su132111989.
Godjevac, M., Van Biert, L., Visser, K. and Aravind, P. V. (2016) ‘A Review of Fuel
Cell Systems for Maritime Applications’, Journal of Power Sources, 327(X), pp. 345–
364. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.07.007.
Grigoriadis, A., Mamarikas S., Ioannidis, I., Majamäki, E., Jalkanen, J. P. and
67
Ntziachristos, L. (2021) ‘Development of Exhaust Emission Factors for Vessels: A
Review and Meta-analysis of Available Data’, Atmospheric Environment: X, 12. doi:
10.1016/j.aeaoa.2021.100142.
Grzegorz Pawelec (2021) ‘Comparative Report on Alternative Fuels for Ship

Propulsion’, Interreg North-West Europe H2 Ships, pp. 1–85. Available at:
https://www.nweurope.eu/media/14694/21022https://www.nweurope.eu/media/1469
4/210225_h2ships_t232_compassesmtaltfuels-02.pdf.
Hammer, L. S., Leisner, M., Eide, M. S., Sverud, T., Mjøs, N., Berge, K., Ingvaldsen,
I. and Mildal, S. (2021) ‘Ammonia as a Marine Fuel Safety Handbook’, Green
Shipping Programme, pp. 1–28. Available at: https://grontskipsfartsprogram.no/wp-
content/uploads/2021/03/Ammonia-as-Marine-Fuel-Safety-Handbook-Rev-01.pdf.
Hansen, E. K., Rasmussen, H. B. and Lützen, M. (2020) ‘Making Shipping More

Carbon-friendly? Exploring Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plans in Legislation
and Practice’, Energy Research and Social Science, 65(April 2019), p. 101459. doi:
10.1016/j.erss.2020.101459.
Hansson, J., Fridell, E. and Brynolf, S. (2020) On the Potential of Ammonia as Fuel
for Shipping, A Synthesis of Knowledge, Lighthouse reports. Available at:
https://fudinfo.trafikverket.se/fudinfoexternwebb/Publikationer/Publikationer_004101
_004200/Publikation_004185/FS2_2019_The potential of ammonia as fuel for
shipping.pdf.
Havard, D. (2013) Oil and Gas Production Handbook - An introduction to oil and gas
production, transport, refining and petrochemical industry. 3rd edn. ABB. Available
at: https://library.e.abb.com/public/34d5b70e18f7d6c8c1257be500438ac3/Oil and
gas production handbook ed3x0_web.pdf.
Hendrik, B. and Hektor, E. A. (2020) ‘Ammonia as a Marine Fuel - Group

Technology & Research, White Paper 2020’, DNV GL, pp. 1–28. Available at:
https://www.dnv.com/Publications/ammonia-as-a-marine-fuel-191385.
Herdzik, J. (2021) ‘Decarbonization of Marine Fuels—The Future of Shipping’,

Energies, 14(14). doi: 10.3390/en14144311.
Hjartholm Kalstad, K. (2021) Ammonia Fuelled Solid Oxide Fuel Cell to Power
Maritime Applications, [MSc Dissertation, Agder University]. University of Agder
Norway, Department of Engineering Sciences. Available at:
https://uia.brage.unit.no/uia-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2789156/Kalstad
68
Kristoffer Hjartholm %28301%29_78839477_2.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Horton, G., Finney, H., Fischer, S., Sikora, I., McQuillen, J., Ash, N. and Shakeel, H.
(2022) ‘Technological, Operational and Energy Pathways for Maritime Transport to
Reduce Emissions Towards 2050’, Richardo Energy & Environment, (6). Available
at: https://www.concawe.eu/wp-content/uploads/Technological-Operational-and-
Energy-Pathways-for-Maritime-Transport-to-Reduce-Emissions-Towards-2050.pdf.
Hydrogen Europe (2021) ‘How Hydrogen Can Help the Maritime’, Hydrogen Europe,
(June). Available at: https://www.hydrogeneurope.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2021/11/How-hydrogen-can-help-decarbonise-the-maritime-
sector_final.pdf.
HyResponder (2021) ‘Lecture 4 Compatibility of Hydrogen with Different Materials

LEVEL IV Specialist officer’, European Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
Lecture, IV. Available at: https://hyresponder.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2021/06/L4_HyResponder_Level4_210616.pdf.
IMO (2016) Studies on the Feasibility and Use of LNG as a Fuel for Shipping, Air
Pollution and energy efficiency studies 3. Available at: https://glomeep.imo.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/12/LNG-Study.pdf.
IMO (2020) ‘Fourth IMO Greenhouse Gas Study’, International Maritime

Organisation, 4(1), pp. 1–23. Available at: https://greenvoyage2050.imo.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/07/Fourth-IMO-GHG-Study-2020-Full-report-and-
annexes_compressed.pdf.
Inal, O. B., Dere, C. and Deniz, C. (2021) ‘Onboard Hydrogen Storage for Ships : An
Overview’, Research Gate, (November). Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351982637_Onboard_Hydrogen_Storage_
for_Ships_An_Overview.
IRENA (2019) ‘Hydrogen : A Renewable Energy Perspective’, International

Renewable Energy Agency, (September). Available at: https://www.irena.org/-
/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Sep/IRENA_Hydrogen_2019.pdf.
IRENA (2021) ‘A Pathway to Decarbonise the Shipping Sector’, International

Renewable Energy Agency. Available at: https://www.irena.org/-
/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2021/Oct/IRENA_Decarbonising_Shipping_
2021.pdf.
69
Jeerch, G., Zhang, M. and Tao, S. (2021) ‘Recent Progress in Ammonia Fuel Cells
and their Potential Applications’, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, Royal Society of
Chemistry, 9(2), pp. 727–752. doi: 10.1039/d0ta08810b.
Kastner, L., Luo, L., Maroti, S., Tsai, E. and Zhang, W. (2020) ‘Zero - Carbon Fuels
for Marine Shipping’, Clean Air Task Foce Columbia University. Available at:
https://cdn.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/21092831/2020_SIPA_Zero-Carbon-
Shipping.pdf.
Langer, S., Österman, C., Strandberg, B., Moldanová, J. and Fridén, H. (2020)
‘Impacts of Fuel Quality on Indoor Environment Onboard a Ship: From policy to
Practice’, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 83(May), p.
102352. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102352.
Lanz, A., Heffel, J. and Messer, C. (2001) Hydrogen Fuel Cell Engines and Related
Technologies. College of the Desert, Palm Desert, CA, USA. Available at:
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/14966.
Lloyd’s Register (2019) ‘Fuel Production Cost Estimates and Assumptions’, Lloyds
Register, p. 44. Available at: https://www.lr.org/en-gb/insights/global-marine-trends-
2030/https://sustainableworldports.org/wp-content/uploads/Lloyds-
Register_2019_Fuel-production-cost-estimates-and-assumptions-report.pdf.
MAN (2013) ME-GI Dual Fuel MAN B & W Engines - A Technical, Operational and
Cost-effective Solution for Ships Fuelled by Gas, MAN Diesel & Turbo. Available at:
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/3124224/me-gi-dual-fuel-man-bw-
engines-man-diesel-turbo.
MAN (2019) ‘Engineering the Future Two-Stroke Green-Ammonia Engine’, MAN

Energy Solutions, pp. 1–20. Available at: https://fathom.world/wp-
content/uploads/2020/05/engineeringthefuturetwostrokegreenammoniaengine15893
39239488.pdf.
MAN (2020) ‘MAN B & W, Two-stroke Engine Operating on Ammonia’, MAN Energy
Solutions. Available at: https://www.man-es.com/docs/default-
source/marine/tools/man-b-w-two-stroke-engine-operating-on-ammonia.pdf.
MAN (2022) Emission Project Guide, 12th edn., MAN Energy Solutions. Available
at: https://man-
es.com/applications/projectguides/2stroke/content/special_pg/PG_7020-0145.pdf.
70
MariGreen (2018) ‘Perspectives for the Use of Hydrogen as Fuel in Inland Shipping
- A Feasibility Study’, Maritime Innovation in Green Technologies. Available at:
https://www.dst-org.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Hydrogen-Feasibility-Study-
MariGreen.pdf.
Markowski, J. and Pielecha, I. (2019) ‘The Potential of Fuel Cells as a Drive Source
of Maritime Transport’, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
214(1). doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/214/1/012019.
Mokhatab, S., Mak, J. Y., Valappil, J. V., and Wood, D. A. (2014) Handbook of
Liquefied Natural Gas. 1st edn, Elsevier Inc. 1st edn. Oxford. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-
12-404585-9.00001-5.
Mokhatab, S., Poe, W. A. and Mak, J. Y. (2019) Handbook of Natural Gas

Transmission and Processing: Principles and Practices, 4th edn, Gulf Professional
Publishing. doi: 10.1016/C2017-0-03889-2.
Muenster, M. (2019) ‘LNG Opportunities & Challenges As A Marine Fuel’,

Breakthrough. Available at: https://www.breakthroughfuel.com/blog/lng-
opportunities-and-challenges-diversifying-shippers-marine-fuel-portfolio.
Nerheim, A. R., Æsøy, V. and Holmeset, F. T. (2021) ‘Hydrogen as a Maritime Fuel–

Can Experiences with LNG be Transferred to Hydrogen Systems?’, Journal of
Marine Science and Engineering, 9(7). doi: 10.3390/jmse9070743.
Noussan, M., Raimondi, P. P., Scita, R. and Hafner, M. (2021) ‘The Role of Green
and Blue Hydrogen in the Energy Transition - A Technological and Geopolitical
Perspective’, Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(1), pp. 1–26. doi:
10.3390/su13010298.
Nowotny, J. and Veziroglu, T. N. (2011) ‘Impact of Hydrogen on the Environment’,

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 36(20), pp. 13218–13224. doi:
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.07.071.
Pavlenko, N., Comer, B., Zhou, Y., Clark, N., and Rutherford, D. (2020) ‘The Climate
Implications of Using LNG as a Marine Fuel’, ICCT Working Paper 2020-02,
(January). Available at:
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Climate_implications_LNG_marinefu
el_01282020.pdf.
Pierre, C. S., Niels, B. C. and Mads, L. A. (2011) ‘Costs and Benefits of LNG as
71
Ship Fuel for Container Vessels Key Results from a GL and MAN Joint Study’, MAN
Diesel & Turbo, p. 11. Available at: http://www.gl-
group.com/pdf/GL_MAN_LNG_study_web.pdf.
Raya, U. S., Kolmetz, K., Box, P. O., Bahru, J., Malaysia, W. and Dwijayanti, A.
(2020) ‘Kolmetz Handbook of Process Equipment Design - Pressure Vessel
Selection, Sizing And Troubleshooting’, Research Gate, (July). Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343290094.
Rayco Quintana, D. (2018) Economic Feasibility of a Hydrogen-fuelled Marine

Transportation System - Case Study of a Bulk Carrier at CBM [MSc Dissertation,
Delf University], Delft University of Technology. Mechanical, Maritime and Materials
Engineering, Netherlands. Available at:
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Hydrogen-and-propulsion-ships-
jan22.pdf.
Rony, A. H., Kitada, M., Dalaklis, D., Ölçer, A. I. and Ballini, F. (2019) ‘Exploring the
New Policy Framework of Environmental Performance Management for Shipping: A
Pilot Study’, WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 18(1), pp. 1–24. doi: 10.1007/s13437-
019-00165-z.
SEA-LNG (2022) ‘LNG - A Fuel in Transition’, SEA-LNG.ORG, (212). Available at:

https://sea-lng.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/LNG-2022_A-view-from-the-
bridge_V937.pdf.
Shipping Zero Emission Project (2020) ‘Roadmap to Zero Emission from

International Shipping Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism’, The
Nippon Foundation, (March). Available at:
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Environment/Documents/Air
pollution/Roadmap to Zero Emission from International Shipping - Japan March
2020.pdf.
SIGTTO (2012) ‘Guidance for the Prevention of Rollover in LNG Ships’, Society of
International Gas Tanker & Terminal Operators, p. 14. Available at:
https://www.sigtto.org/media/1398/guidance-for-the-prevention-of-rollover-on-
lng_ships.pdf.
Spoof-Tuomi, K. and Niemi, S. (2020) ‘Environmental and Economic Evaluation of

Fuel Choices for Short Sea Shipping’, Clean Technologies, 2(1), pp. 34–52. doi:
10.3390/cleantechnol2010004.
72
The Economist (2021) Creating the New Hydrogen Economy is a Massive
Undertaking, The Economist - A very big balancing act. Available at:
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/10/09/creating-the-new-hydrogen-
economy-is-a-massive-undertaking (Accessed: 23 February 2022).
Tonstad, T., Åstrand, H. H., Haugom G. P. and Langfeldt (2017) Study on the Use of
Fuel Cells in Shipping, EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency, DNV GL –
Maritime. doi: 10.5220/0002697000590063.
TotalEnergies (2021) ‘The Drive for Cleaner Marine Fuels - Whitepaper’,

TotalEnergies Marine Fuels. Available at:
https://marinefuels.totalenergies.com/system/files/atoms/files/totalenergies_marine_f
uels_the_drive_for_cleaner_marine_fuels_digital.pdf.
Van Hoecke, L., Laffineur, L., Campe, R., Perreault P., Verbruggen, S. W. and
Lenaerts S. (2021) ‘Challenges in the Use of Hydrogen for Maritime Applications’,
Energy and Environmental Science, 14(2), pp. 815–843. doi: 10.1039/d0ee01545h.
Vedachalam, S., Baquerizo, N. and Dalai, A. K. (2022) ‘Review on Impacts of Low

Sulfur Regulations on Marine Fuels and Compliance Options’, Fuel, 310(PA), p.
122243. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122243.
Verfondern, K., Cirrone, D., Molkov, V., Makarov, D., Coldrick, S., Ren, Z., Wen, J.,
Proust, C., Friedrich, A. and Jordan, T. (2021) ‘Handbook of Hydrogen Safety :
Chapter on LH2 Safety, 6th edn’, Pre-normative REsearch for Safe use of Liquid
Hydrogen (PRESLHY), (779613). Available at: https://hysafe.info/wp-
content/uploads/sites/3/2021/04/D39_2021-01-PRESLHY_ChapterLH2-v3.pdf.
Vidas, S., Cukrov, M., Šutalo, V. and Rudan, S. (2021) ‘CO2 Emissions Reduction
Measures For Ro-Ro Vessels on Non-Profitable Coastal Liner Passenger
Transport’, Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(12), pp. 1–15. doi: 10.3390/su13126909.
Vries, N. (2019) Safe and Effective Application of Ammonia as a Marine Fuel, [MSc
Dissertation, Delft University], Delft University of Technology. Delft University of
Technology. Available at:
https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3Abe8cbe0a-28ec-4bd9-8ad0-
648de04649b8.
Wärtsilä (2021) Wärtsilä and RINA Partner with other Stakeholders to Deliver a
Viable Hydrogen Fuel Solution to Meet IMO 2050 Target, Wärtsilä Corporation,
Trade press release. Available at: https://www.wartsila.com/media/news/25-11-
73
2021-wartsila-and-rina-partner-with-other-stakeholders-to-deliver-a-viable-hydrogen-
fuel-solution-to-meet-imo-2050-target-3013516 (Accessed: 23 February 2021).
Whipple, T. (2022) ‘Scientists Iron Out Glitches to Make Cheap Green Fuel.’, The
Times, 26 April.
Wisløff, K. and Nervold, E. H. (2021) Report for Pilot “ Ammonia as Fuel ”, Green
Shipping Programme. Available at: https://grontskipsfartsprogram.no/wp-
content/uploads/2021/07/Ammonia-as-fuel.pdf.
Xing, H., Stuart, C., Spence, S. and Chen, H. (2021a) ‘Alternative Fuel Options for
Low Carbon Maritime Transportation: Pathways to 2050’, Journal of Cleaner
Production, 297(April 2018), p. 126651. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126651.
Xing, H., Stuart, C., Spence, S. and Chen, H. (2021b) ‘Fuel cell power systems for
Maritime Applications: Progress and Perspectives’, Sustainability (Switzerland),
13(3), pp. 1–34. doi: 10.3390/su13031213.
Yapicioglu, A. and Dincer, I. (2019) ‘A review on Clean Ammonia as a Potential Fuel

for Power Generators’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 103
(December 2018), pp. 96–108. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.023.
74
11. Appendices
Appendix A: Tank options for storage LNG onboard
Source: (ABS, 2020b)
75
Appendix B: Summary of fuel cell Technologies
Source: (Tonstad et al., 2017)
76
Appendix C: Summary of ammonia projects globally
1. 50,000 dwt MR ammonia tanker design
2. Ammonia fuelled VLCC concept design
3. Ammonia-fueled Chittagongmax container
4. Avin International orders landmark ammonia-ready suezmax series
5. Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Ammonia Concept Study
6. Joint Agreement Reached for GHG Zero-Emission Ship
7. Joint Development Project for DSME NH3 fueled Container Ship
8. LR and SHI ammonia-fuelled tanker design
9. Mejillones ammonia plant
10. Memorandum of Understanding to study ammonia marine fuel supply

chain in Singapore
11. NoGAPS
12. NYK ammonia-fueled ammonia gas carrier and Ammonia Floating Storage
and Regasification Barge
13. NYK ammonia-fueled tugboat
14. SDARI ammonia-fueled Bulk Carrier
15. SOC4NH3
16. The ShipFC project - Viking Energy Ship
17. The world’s first green ammonia fuelled tanker: MS Green Ammonia
18. Zeeds (Zero Emission Energy Distribution at Sea initiative)
19. Pilbara Ammonia Plant
20. Porsgrunn Plant Project
21. SOFC4Maritime
Source: (Fahnestock and Bingham, 2021)
77
Appendix D: Ammonia Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL)
Source: (ABS, 2020a)
78
Appendix E: Hydrogen colours depending on the production type
Source: (GEI, 2021)
79
Appendix F: Summary of hydrogen projects globally
1. ABB and CFT - World’s First Hydrogen-Powered River Vessel
2. BeHydro
3. BIG HIT
4. CMB.TECH - hydrogen refuelling station
5. CTV Hydrogen Ship
6. Feasibility study of the Power2AX project on green hydrogen production and use in ferries in the Åland archipelago
7. Ferguson Marine Hydrogen Ferry – HySeas III
8. Gigastack Project
9. H2RES Project
10. H2SHIPS The port of Oostende (PO)
11. Havyard Group’s FreeCO2ast development project
12. Heide refinery project: WESTKUESTE 100
13. Hellesylt Hydrogen Hub
14. Hydrobingo
15. Hydrogen electrolysis plant, Port of Hamburg
16. Hydrotug
17. Hyport- Green Hydrogen Plant, Ostend
18. MAN Cryo marine fuel-gas system for liquefied hydrogen
19. Mongstad Industrial Park: production plant for liquid hydrogen
20. MOU between ABB and HDF
21. Nedstack & OSD-IMT - worlds first hydrogen fuel cell powered tugboat
22. NortH2
23. NYK Hydrogen-Powered Ferry
24. NYK Super Eco Ship 2050
25. Project H-Vision
26. Project MARANDA - a new fuel cell powertrain
27. Project Seashuttle
28. Shell - Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Pilot Project
29. SOHAR Port and Freezone Going Green
30. The RH2INE collaboration
31. ULSTEIN SX190 Zero Emission
32. Inland river Hydrogen-fueled demonstration ship as part of "Green Pearl River"
33. Norled Hydrogen Ferry
34. Water-Go-Round
35. ZeFF – Zero-emission Fast Ferry
36. Yara and Ørsted - Sluiskil plant
37. Power System As A Service
38. Electrofuels for Shipping Chile Concept Study
39. Hafnium
40. HYPORT®Duqm
41. ARK GERMANY Fuel Cell Test Ship Project
42. HyShip project
Source: (Fahnestock and Bingham, 2021)
80
Appendix G: Questionnaire
Dissertation Questionnaire
This questionnaire is part of my dissertation’s research in the City University of London

at MSc Maritime Operations and Management, with the subject: Potential alternative
fuels for shipping decarbonisation. Multidimensional research is conducted on three
alternative fuels focusing on their main aspects. The views of maritime professionals will
enable me to have a deeper understanding of this subject. All your responses will be
used only for the scope of the research.
Thank you very much for your participation.
1) Do you believe that IMO’s initial greenhouse gas strategy on international shipping
emissions reduction is achievable by 2050?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☐ I do not know
2) Which alternative fuel is likely to be more attractive to the maritime industry for
☐ LNG
☐ Ammonia
☐ Hydrogen
☐ Other
If other, please specify :
81
3) If the fuel storage tanks of [VLSFO] have a storage volume ratio equal to 1. How many
more times do you believe that shipowners are willing to increase the size of fuel
storage tanks to accommodate alternative fuels?
☐ 2 times
☐ 3 times
☐ 4 times
☐ 5 times
4) What do you believe can be the most effective way to accelerate the transition of
☐ Stricter rules and regulations on air emissions
☐ Carbon pricing schemes
☐ Financial benefits for shipowners and operators

☐ Collaboration between industry and authorities
5) Which is the main driver for developing alternative fuels' bunkering infrastructure?
☐ Political factors
☐ Economic factors
☐ Technological factors
☐ Environmental factors
6) Any other comments (3-4 lines)
82

Potential Alternative Fuels for Shipping Decarbonisation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Potential Alternative Fuels for Shipping Decarbonisation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

School of Mathematics, Computer Science and

Potential Alternative Fuels for Shipping

MSc. in Maritime Operations and Management

Supervisor: Professor John Carlton

This project examines alternative fuels options and their feasibility in

Embodying a questionnaire delivered to different maritime professionals, this

Overall, it concludes that financial aid to shipowners combined with carbon

Figure 1: Natural Gas Composition .........................................................................10

Table 1: Properties of natural gas ...........................................................................11

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels

LGH2 Liquid Hydrogen

LHV Lower Heating Value

List of Chemical Substances

bar bar [Pressure: 1 bar = 0.9869 Standard atmospheres]

1. Understand the importance of decarbonisation on the environment and

4. Critically evaluate their major challenges on fuel storage space, availability,

5. Identify and recommend possible ways of implementing sustainable

1.2 Research Limitations

1.3 Literature Review

Concerning the financial aspects and decarbonisation pathways. The International

2.1 Air Emissions from the Burning of Conventional Fuels

2.1.1 Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)

2.1.2 Sulphur Oxides (SOX)

2.1.3 Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

2.1.4 Particulate Matters (PMs)

2.2 Incentives to Reduce Air Emissions in Shipping

In the next subchapters, will be analysed the measures developed by MARPOL.

2.2.1 Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)

2.2.3 Carbon Intensity Index (CII)

2.2.4 Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP)

2.2.5 Data Collection System (DCS)

 Liquified natural gas

3.1 Liquified Natural Gas (CH4)

3.1.1 Properties and Characteristics

Figure 1: Natural Gas Composition (Foss, 2012)

3.1.2 Production and storage infrastructures

Figure 3 Generic view of a membrane tank (Mokhatab et al., 2014)

3.1.3 Internal Combustion Engines

Figure 4: Components to be modified: ME-GI compared to an ME engine (MAN, 2013)

3.1.4 Fuel Cells

3.1.5 Cost and Availability

3.1.6 Safety Considerations

3.2 Ammonia (NH3)

3.2.1 Properties and Characteristics

Property Value or Detail

3.2.2 Production and Storage Infrastructures

The process of Haber-Bosch that combines N2 and H2 in high temperatures is used

3.2.3 Internal Combustion Engines

According to past research on ammonia’s combustion in dual-fuel engines, the major

Problem Description Possible solutions

Using ammonia as a fuel source will

The cooling system for the diesel

The only negative effect for

Currently, MAN develops two-stroke dual-fuelled ammonia combustion engines. The

Figure 9: Main components of NH3 supply system (MAN, 2020)

3.2.4 Fuel Cells

The biggest benefit of SOFC is fuel adaptability. It facilitates H2 carrier fuels to be

Figure 12: Ammonia terminals across the world (IRENA, 2021)

3.3 Hydrogen (H2)

3.3.1 Properties and Characteristics

Table 5: Properties of hydrogen, adjusted from (Bourne and Remme, 2019)

Hydrogen is characterised by high energy density. For example, a Kg of H2 has almost

3.3.2 Production and Storage Infrastructures