Why Delivery’s Low-Carbon Future Depends Extra on Batteries & Biofuels Than Methanol

Maritime transport, accountable for roughly 3% of worldwide greenhouse gasoline emissions, stands at an unprecedented turning level. As we progress towards mid-century, decarbonization is not non-compulsory however obligatory, pushed by stringent worldwide laws, together with the Worldwide Maritimate Group’s current gas carbon pricing determination and company sustainability commitments. This requirement for transformation in transport’s propulsion methods has elevated a handful of gas and know-how pathways into rivalry: methanol, biodiesel and hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO), and battery-electric propulsion. Every of those choices presents distinctive financial, logistical, and operational tradeoffs that form their viability within the many years forward.

Analyzing transport decarbonization by way of 2100, my projections see an aggressive shift away from conventional fossil fuels. These situations anticipate near-complete displacement of heavy gas oils by biomoass-derived alternate options and electrification. The broader decarbonization trajectory signifies a gradual however definitive motion towards low-carbon and zero-emission transport, pushed primarily by intensifying regulatory frameworks, carbon pricing, and market expectations.

Methanol-fueled ships have just lately captured important consideration inside the maritime trade. 60 dual-fuel methanol ships are at the moment in operation and roughly 340 dual-fuel vessels are on order globally as of mid-2025, reflecting fast and aggressive adoption amongst main transport corporations, notably container ship operators reminiscent of Maersk, CMA CGM, COSCO, ONE, and Evergreen. These dual-fuel vessels symbolize a strategic hedge by shipowners and operators in opposition to future carbon pricing dangers and stricter emissions laws. Nonetheless, the excessive enthusiasm seen in vessel orders contrasts sharply with the sobering actuality of methanol gas provide.

Low-carbon methanol—both biomethanol produced from renewable biomass or e-methanol synthesized from captured carbon dioxide and renewable hydrogen—is right this moment scarcely out there and very pricey. Present international renewable methanol manufacturing is negligible, lower than 1% of complete methanol manufacturing, and considerably inadequate to assist the burgeoning methanol-fleet. With biomethanol costs usually between $1,200 and $1,500 per ton, and e-methanol even increased, round $1,500 to $2,000 per ton, the financial problem of large-scale adoption is pronounced. It’s essential to notice that methanol has solely 45% of the power density of VLSFO, so the costs per kilometer steamed are a lot increased than a per ton value evaluation would counsel. Consequently, methanol-capable ships, regardless of their potential, presently devour predominantly fossil-based methanol or typical marine fuels.

As I labored out a few years in the past, fossil-derived methanol isn’t remotely a local weather answer, though it’s a air pollution answer. As 99.5% of methanol is derived from pure gasoline or coal gasoline, the typical carbon depth is sort of 3 times that of VLSFO or marine diesel. Pure gasoline derived methanol is simply double the emissions, however that also has zero benefit. The methanol trade has lengthy been utilizing a lot better tank-to-wake numbers as an alternative of applicable well-to-wake numbers to faux it’s a clear gas. The IMO solely adopted well-to-wake necessities for decarbonization assessments in 2021, one thing the methanol and ammonia industries exploited, together with the worldwide delusion that inexperienced hydrogen can be low cost, to faux that they have been the proper selections.

Logistical constraints compound the problem for low-carbon methanol adoption. Shipowners have reported difficulties securing constant, dependable sources of renewable methanol, reflecting a broader infrastructural bottleneck. Ports able to supplying renewable methanol stay few, with operators encountering complicated logistical and security issues that complicate fast deployment. Early adopters, notably Maersk, have needed to make investments appreciable effort and assets into arranging restricted, high-cost provides of renewable methanol for preliminary voyages, highlighting the nascent state of bunkering infrastructure and the prohibitive prices related to these pioneering endeavors.

By comparability, biodiesel and hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) are notably pragmatic and instantly deployable alternate options. Each fuels, produced from waste biomass and vegetable oils, leverage established refining processes, mature provide chains, and current marine gas infrastructure. Their “drop-in” nature is essential—marine diesel engines can use biodiesel and HVO blends with out modifications, considerably lowering boundaries to adoption. Moreover, biodiesel and HVO costs are significantly decrease and extra predictable than these for low-carbon methanol, usually round $1,000 to $1,500 per ton.

Importantly, the continued electrification of street transport is projected to free substantial volumes of biofuels initially allotted to floor automobiles, enhancing future maritime availability and presumably driving prices even decrease over time. Because the IEA reported final 12 months, we already manufacture about 100 million tons of biofuels, 70 million tons of it HVO and biodiesel, yearly, however we use it virtually fully in floor transportation right this moment. I’ve had the dialog with the leaders of the US biodiesel affiliation, and they’re wanting carefully at maritime transport as their subsequent progress market.

That drop in nature contains bunkering amenities in ports. Blends of VLSFO and biodiesel/HVO can be found in some components right this moment, with precisely the identical quick aspect tanks and bunkering processes delivering the blends as an alternative of pure VLSFO. In contrast, methanol requires new tanks, new processes, and new pumping gear, or intensive modifications to current gear as a result of its way more corrosive nature. Decrease capital and working prices for ports and ships make HVO/biodiesel a straightforward alternative in comparison with methanol of any provenance.

There’s an argument to be made right here that whereas ships can run on methanol, airplanes can’t, and that the heavier molecules in feedstocks simply remodeled into HVO, biodiesel or biokerosene have to be preserved for aviation. Paul Martin and I’ve had that dialogue just a few instances. Nonetheless, as there are such a lot of pathways to biofuels of every type, together with human poop to jet gas, I’m content material to let this one play out within the market. Certainly one of my enterprise collaborators is approaching remaining funding determination on a methanol-to-jet plant on refinery grounds within the UK, with sourced biomethanol because the feedstock, and LanzaJet is establishing one million gallon a 12 months ethanol-to-jet plant in the USA. The jury is out.

Battery-electric propulsion presents a compelling long-term answer, notably for shorter-distance transport routes, ferries, coastal vessels, and inland waterway transport. Battery costs have declined dramatically over the previous decade, and continued steep reductions are projected. Whereas battery propulsion methods nonetheless entail important upfront capital funding, primarily as a result of battery pack prices, these bills amortize successfully over the multi-decade lifespan typical of maritime vessels. Battery-electric propulsion boasts unmatched power effectivity—round 80–90%, vastly superior to inside combustion engines. Past financial issues, battery-electric ships have near-silent operation, minimal upkeep wants, and elimination of direct emissions, making them notably suited to environmentally delicate areas and ports.

For bigger, ocean-going ships with prolonged vary necessities, full battery-electric propulsion stays impractical within the quick to medium time period as a result of battery dimension, weight, and price constraints. Nonetheless, hybrid propulsion methods that combine batteries with biodiesel or HVO engines symbolize a strong interim answer. In such hybrid configurations, onboard batteries cowl peak power calls for, handle variable hundreds effectively, and supply important operational financial savings by way of optimized engine effectivity. Such hybrid methods prolong battery benefits—excessive effectivity, lowered emissions, and noise discount—to longer-distance vessels, facilitating regulatory compliance and lowering total lifecycle working prices.

Regulatory environments more and more outline maritime operational contexts, notably by way of the growth of Emissions Management Areas (ECAs). These areas, prevalent in Northern Europe, North America, and now rising quickly in Asia, impose strict requirements on gas sulfur content material and emissions, basically reshaping gas and know-how choice. Crucially, methanol (notably renewable), biodiesel, HVO, and battery-electric propulsion all comply totally with ECA laws, offering fleet operators substantial flexibility and lowered regulatory dangers.

My present expectation is that every one ships may have battery electrical drive trains, with ocean-crossing vessels hybridized. All transport will function on batteries inside 200 km of coasts, in ports and on in land water methods in the long run sport. Whether or not the hybrid gas is HVO/biodiesel or bio-methane stays to be seen.

A complete comparability of fuels should consider each power densities and engine efficiencies. Adjusting for these important components clearly reveals battery electrical because the lowest working value various to VLSFO with biodiesel and HVO as essentially the most economically sensible options among the many renewable liquid fuels. This calculation right this moment was available to be carried out years in the past once I first did it, and the transport trade isn’t a charity. Decarbonized ships will function on what is reasonable, out there and low-carbon, and that’s not methanol.

That e-methanol worth level isn’t going to get higher. As I’ve been mentioning for years, hydrogen will be inexperienced, however it may possibly’t be low cost, most just lately in a chunk outlining 5 power myths. Artificial fuels will stay way more costly than biofuels. Additional, the value hole between biomethanol and biodiesel/HVO isn’t going to shut a lot, if in any respect.

As a observe for ammonia advocates, I stay astounded that anybody is contemplating the liquid as a transport gas. Mariners can inform what engines are burning due to the scent within the engine room as a result of slippage. Ammonia fumes are extremely harmful to people, usually deadly. When ammonia mixes with water — observe, these are ships we’re speaking about — ammonia turns right into a extremely corrosive gasoline which if inhaled destroys lungs. After that it turns into one thing that’s simply unhealthy for human well being. As one European public well being official identified, if there have been a significant bunkering spill, tens of 1000’s of individuals in port cities would die. Then there’s the hazard to marine life. Sure, we’ve ammonia tankers, however only some dozen, and they’re handled in separate areas of ports with excessive care.

Ammonia is a good fertilizer, and utilizing it that manner maximizes crop yields which might then be used for biofuels. Utilizing a ton of ammonia to develop crops moderately than burning it yields roughly forty-times extra usable gas power (and round thirty instances the mass of liquid gas). Low-carbon ammonia might be costly ammonia and it may possibly’t be made out of biomass, so it will likely be in the identical worth vary as e-methanol, far out of the operating.

Evaluating these choices and market dynamics, the pragmatic actuality is more and more evident. Methanol-capable dual-fuel ships provide important flexibility however, given renewable methanol’s restricted availability, difficult logistics, and excessive prices, these ships are prone to rely predominantly on fossil methanol or typical fuels within the quick time period, limiting their environmental profit. I’ve mentioned for years that these dual-fuel ships will doubtless burn much more HVO/biodiesel than methanol of their lifetime, and I see little cause to vary my opinion to this point.

Conversely, biodiesel/HVO hybridized with battery-electric propulsion represents essentially the most cost-effective, operationally viable, and instantly impactful path to substantial decarbonization. These hybrid methods cut back emissions, optimize power effectivity, and considerably decrease operational prices, positioning them as the popular transitional and presumably everlasting answer for substantial segments of the maritime trade.

Delivery’s decarbonization trajectory by way of 2100 might be outlined not by any single gas or know-how, however by a versatile and pragmatic mixture of biodiesel, HVO and batteries. Operators and traders who embrace pragmatic hybrid options right this moment stand not solely to scale back environmental impacts considerably but in addition to place themselves advantageously for a future the place regulatory certainty, financial viability, and environmental sustainability align decisively.