FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH
THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR
ASSESSING DECARBONIZATIONTECHNOLOGIES AND
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERSIntroduction
Purpose of this report
The Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework forAssessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative
Energy Carriers (MTF Framework) is a collaborative
exercise that assesses the feasibility of proposed
alternative fuels expected to drive the decarbonizationof the maritime industry. The MTF Framework provides aholistic view of the elements that should be consideredin such an analysis and this report represents the first
application to a select group of fuels, including fossil
fuels to provide an existing baseline. This report highlights
risks associated with certain fuels and technologies aswell as existing knowledge and data gaps. This report:• Starts with a comprehensive approach to evaluate aselection of different fuels• Investigates on-board as well as onshore sustainability
and safety aspects• Builds on existing literature and identifies what is readily
available• Leverages MTF members’ strengths, primarily aroundregulatory and rule development
This report is intended for broad use among maritime
industry stakeholders, including ship owners, charterers,
shipyards, equipment suppliers, flag states, classificationsocieties, intergovernmental organizations andsustainability certification bodies.

MTF Framework
The MTF Framework was published in November 2021
against the backdrop of the United Nations Paris
Agreement, the IMO’s commitment to ‘phase out’ GHG
emissions from the sector in its 2018 Initial Strategy, andan urgency to reduce the impacts of climate change. It
offers a holistic approach for assessing the relative
suitability of technologies and energy carriers to be usedin the maritime sector. It serves to help the industry
choose technologies and/or energy carriers that aresuitable for long term use in the marine environment andin line with the United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals.

Executive summary
Four fuels were selected for assessment, fossil marine gas
oil (MGO), fossil liquefied natural gas (LNG), biomethanol and green ammonia, and three maintakeaways emerged which include critical action items
and high priority suggestions for the industry:

Sustainability and Environmental Criteria
1. Bio-methanol and green ammonia perform betterwith regards to GHG emissions and ecologicalimpact during production when compared to fossil
MGO and fossil LNG. In addition, bio-methanol
performs better among the four fuels in terms of
ecological impact as it pertains to storage anddistribution. In terms of resilience to disruption, MGO
has established value chains, but in contrast,
ammonia does not meet this criterion today due tolack of an established value chain.

Economic Feasibility Criteria
2. The study found that there is insufficient data on
production and availability of green ammonia andbio-methanol, and in both cases, the corresponding
criteria are not met. While regulations can incentivize
the uptake of alternative fuels, currently biomethanol and green ammonia fuels must overcome
a number of challenges to achieve economic
feasibility. This suggests the need for prioritizing more
research and pilot projects to gain practicalexperience and scale.

People Criteria
3. The introduction of alternative fuels leads to aparadigm shift in shipboard operations compared tothe established operations involving fossil fuels,
including the baseline fuel considered in this report,
fossil MGO. This suggests the need for further
development of skills and competencies and theestablishment of training modules with corresponding
certification to build a scalable, global workforce
capable of safe handling of the more hazardous
fuels. The latter exists for LNG and methanol but
needs further development. For ammonia there is alack of training in place due to insufficient experienceand data.

The MTF Framework can be accessed here by visiting
https://www.maritimetechnologiesforum.com/
documents/MTF-concept-paper.pdf.

2 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

Methodology
The fuels evaluation against the MTF framework criteria
was done through a series of workshops. Different fuels
were evaluated and distilled down to three emerging
fuels and one baseline case. Fossil MGO was selected
to be the baseline case. The three fuels identified as
emerging fuels for this report were fossil LNG, biomethanol and green ammonia.

While evaluating these four fuels, feedback was soughtfrom all MTF members. After the members provided theirindividual input, a concluding workshop was conductedto aggregate the results.
The evaluation was performed using all 45 sub-criteria laidout in the framework and categorized into eight high-level
criteria. For each sub-criterion, data availability and thelevel of meeting the criterion was assessed using theoptions shown in the table below.

OPINIONSOPTIONSDESCRIPTION

Data availability:

Available andorganized

Available and organized means data exists in a structured manner
which is easily evaluated against the criteria.

Available, needs
processing

Available, needs processing means data exists but not in a
structured manner, and efforts are needed to compile and assess
against the criteria.

Assessment notneededAssessment not needed is used for the base case when the criteria
itself is based on current performance and future fuels andtechnology needs to be at least as good or better than incumbent
solutions.

Insufficient data

Insufficient data means that no or limited data is available for
evaluation against the criteria. A likely assessment has been
provided, but it cannot be confirmed at this stage.

Meets criterion

Meets criterion means the fuel fully meets or is expected to meet theframework criteria.

Meets criterion –can be improved

Meets criterion – can be improved means the fuel either meets or is
expected to meet the framework criteria but can be upgradedfurther.

Fail

Fail means the fuel either requires significant developments toachieve the criteria in the future or is not expected to meet theframework criteria.

Data availability isneeded to understandif there is enoughinformation available
and whether it exists in a
structured manner.

Meets criterion:
The criterion here refers
to whether the fuelmeets the framework
criteria.

3 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

Assumptions
When no information was readily available, the MTF members made reasonable assumptions to complete the exercise.
The opinions and options were the best judgement of the members based on their expertise. The options available listed
in the table above were determined through a collaborative effort. Then members were encouraged to make theirchoices on available options.

Disclaimer
The results here are a collaborative effort between all of the MTF members. Each organization within the forum may havean independent opinion different from the results presented in this report. This report does not preclude MTF members
from having their own independent opinion or conclusion.

Conclusions
With fossil MGO as the base case, we compared the other three emerging fuels through the framework. The results
aggregated on the high-level criteria are presented below as heatmaps and conclusions.
Additional detailed heatmaps presenting the results of assessing sub-criteria are contained in the appendix which also
describes the method of translating qualitative assessments into numbers for the purpose of aggregation. High-level
criteria priorities shown in the heatmaps below were also used to weight assessment results, i.e., assessment scores for
criteria with lower priority were scaled down. The application of priorities was considered in the context ofdecarbonization, but it is not meant to facilitate comparisons across categories of both fuels and technologies.
The color-coding of the heatmaps in this report assigns green if criteria are fully met or data is fully available and red if
criteria are failed upon or data is not available.
Heatmap – summarizing level of meeting assessment criteria

Priority

Fossil MGO

Fossil LNG

Bio-methanol

GreenAmmonia

0.96

0.79

0.68

1.11

0.86

Safety

1.00

2.00

1.88

1.50

1.38

Technology Status

0.63

1.25

1.25

1.00

0.63

Security

0.75

1.50

1.50

1.38

0.75

Avg of meeting criteria
Sustainability & Environmental

Economic Feasibility

0.91

1.81

0.91

0.75

0.66

Regulatory

0.75

1.50

1.31

0.38

0.19

People

0.75

1.00

0.75

0.75

0.50

Engineering

0.68

1.36

1.25

0.68

0.68

1.40

1.19

0.94

0.70

aggregate(range from 0 to 2, with higher values indicating higher level of meeting criteria)
The criteria category, Sustainability and Environment, are met to a greater extent by the low carbon fuels, bio-methanol
and green ammonia. The current small scale production and projects as well as gaps in related regulations andstandards lead bio-methanol and green ammonia to lower scores compared to more established fuels.
Heatmap – summarizing level of data availability

Priority

Fossil MGO

Fossil LNG

Bio-methanol

GreenAmmonia

0.96

1.36

0.96

1.00

0.57

Safety

1.00

2.00

1.00

0.88

0.38

Technology Status

0.63

1.25

1.25

0.63

0.63

Security

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.50

Economic Feasibility

0.91

1.81

1.16

0.59

0.84

Regulatory

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.19

People

0.75

1.25

0.75

0.75

0.50

Engineering

0.68

1.25

1.36

0.50

0.21

1.49

1.00

0.73

0.48

Avg of data availability
Sustainability & Environmental

aggregate(range from 0 to 2, with higher values indicating higher level of data availability)
Availability of data to assess the criteria of the MTF Framework is lower for alternative fuels compared to fossil MGO andis lowest for green ammonia. This indicates a need for more research and development as well as pilots to close theknowledge gaps.

4 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

CRITERIA

DOES THE FUEL MEET ASSESSMENT CRITERIA?

IS THERE SUFFICIENT DATA AVAILABLE?

Sustainability &Environmental

Bio-methanol and green ammonia performbetter with regards to GHG emissions andecological impact during production whencompared to fossil MGO and fossil LNG. In
addition, bio-methanol performs better among
the four fuels in terms of ecological impact as it
pertains to storage and distribution. In terms ofresilience to disruption, MGO has establishedvalue chains, but in contrast, ammonia does notmeet the criterion due to lack of an establishedvalue chain and insufficient data

Data availability for Sustainability andEnvironmental is low for all alternative fuels but
can be further organized.

SafetyAdditional enhancements are required in thecase of bio-methanol and green ammonia tomeet safety aspirations while noting that theformer performs better than the latter.

Data for safety is fully available for Fossil MGO. It
is mostly available for Fossil LNG and biomethanol but is lacking for green ammonia.

Technology
StatusFossil MGO and fossil LNG are readily available.
Bio-methanol and green ammonia are on thecusp of readiness with impending improvements,
however technology development is further
along for bio-methanol than green ammonia.

Data is available and organized for fossil MGO
and fossil LNG. Data is available but processing isrequired for bio-methanol and green ammonia.

Security

Although there are some challenges identified,
we except that Security will not significantly
impact the assessment output in the context of
this study.

Data for the security of fuels is generally
available for all alternate fuels.

Economic
Feasibility

The study found that there is insufficient data on
production and availability of green ammonia
and bio-methanol, and in both cases, thecorresponding criteria are not met. Whileregulations can incentivize the uptake ofalternative fuels, currently bio-methanol andgreen ammonia fuels must overcome a numberof challenges to achieve economic feasibility
This suggests the need for prioritizing more
research and pilot projects to gain practicalexperience.

Data for economic feasibility is highest for fossil
MGO. Green ammonia economic feasibility data
is lowest. The other two options fall somewhere in
between.

Regulatory

Regulations are robust for fossil MGO and fossil
LNG. Regulations are currently lacking forbio-methanol and green ammonia. There is
scope for improvement with emerging
regulations for methanol and ammonia.

Data for regulatory aspects is lowest for green
ammonia and highest for fossil MGO. Data forthe other two alternate fuels at a regulatory levelis available but needs processing.

People

The introduction of alternative fuels leads to aparadigm shift in shipboard operations
compared to the established operations
involving fossil fuels, including the baseline fuelconsidered in this report, fossil MGO. This suggests
the need for further development of skills andcompetencies and the establishment of training
modules with corresponding certification to build
a scalable, global workforce. The latter exists for
LNG and methanol but needs further
development. For ammonia there is no training inplace due to insufficient experience and data.

The workforce has the greatest experience infossil MGO and also green ammonia fromland- based applications. Fossil LNG andbio-methanol data is intermediary.

Engineering

Engineering design is robust for fossil MGO andfossil LNG. With few designs for bio-methanol andgreen ammonia, the engineering expertise islower.

Engineering support and data exists widely forfossil MGO and fossil LNG. Data is lacking for theother two alternative fuels.

5 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy CarriersFuture Work
Based on the discussions during the assessment, areas of future focus emerged:
1. The study identifies several sub-criteria for which data is not sufficiently available and failure to meet the assessment
suggest the need for further research and development to enhance industry knowledge and support future decision
making.
2. Additional fuels such as hydrogen and other biofuels including their production pathways as well as technologies
such as onboard carbon capture and storage should be added to the heatmap to have a more complete basis for
decision making.
3. One of the key risks of all alternate fuels is scalability. Though this is addressed through availability within the current
MTF framework, this section could be expanded to integrate aspects of scaling.
4. The first full application of the MTF Framework showed the need to review the framework in terms of association of
sub-criteria, definition of measurement methodologies and thresholds.
5. Fundamental technical challenges could also be identified and expanded within the framework.

APPENDIX 1 – Detailed Results
Results of the assessment for all sub-criteria are shown in the following heatmaps per high-level criterion for each of thefour fuels evaluated. The level of meeting the criteria and the level of data availability is presented in separate diagrams.
Priorities of sub-criteria have been used to scale the results. The translation of qualitative assessment results into thenumbers displayed in the diagrams is shown in the table below.
PRIORITY

NUMERICAL VALUEASSESSMENTDATA AVAILABILITYNUMERICAL VALUE

High

1

Meets criterion

Available andorganized

2

Medium0.75

Meets criterion –can be improved

Available, needs
processing

1

Low

0.5

Fail

Insufficient0

Level of meeting sub-criteria within Sustainability and Environment

Sustainability andEnvironment meets criterion?

Priority

Fossil MGO

Fossil LNG

Bio-methanol

GreenAmmonia

Greenhouse gas emission

1.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

Ecological and social impact(externalities) in production
scenarios

1.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

Ecological and social impact(externalities) in storage anddistribution scenarios

1.00

1.00

1.00

2.00

1.00

Ecological and social impact(externalities) in bunkering
scenarios

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Ecological and social impact(externalities) in onboard use
scenarios

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Recyclability and disposal

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Resilience to shocks anddisruptions (in market,
ecological, etc; not physical)

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.00

6 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy CarriersLevel of data availability within Sustainability and Environment

Sustainability andEnvironment data available?

Priority

Fossil MGO

Fossil LNG

Bio-methanol

GreenAmmonia

Greenhouse gas emission

1.00

2.00

1.00

2.00

1.00

Ecological and social impact(externalities) in production
scenarios

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Ecological and social impact(externalities) in storage anddistribution scenarios

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Ecological and social impact(externalities) in bunkering
scenarios

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

Ecological and social impact(externalities) in onboard use
scenarios

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

Recyclability and disposal

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Resilience to shocks anddisruptions (in market,
ecological, etc; not physical)

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.00

0.00

The detailed heatmaps for Sustainability and Environment show that Fossil MGO and Fossil LNG fail to meet the
sub-criteria on GHG emissions and ecological and social impact in production and that this assessment is backed with
sufficient data quality. In contrast, green ammonia fails to meet the criterion on resilience to shocks but low data
availability indicates a possible future improvement.
Level of meeting sub-criteria within Safety

Safety - meets criterion?

Priority

Fossil MGO

Fossil LNG

Bio-methanol

GreenAmmonia

Safety during production

1.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

Safety during land distribution

1.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

Safety during land storage

1.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

Safety during bunkering

1.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

Safety during onboard
storage

1.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

Safety during onboard usage

1.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

Aggregated safety
considerations

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Safety during disposal

1.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

Safety - data available?

Priority

Fossil MGO

Fossil LNG

Bio-methanol

GreenAmmonia

Safety during production

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Safety during land distribution

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Safety during land storage

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Safety during bunkering

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

Safety during onboard
storage

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

Safety during onboard usage

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

Aggregated safety
considerations

1.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

Safety during disposal

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

Level of data availability within Safety

7 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

Bio-methanol and green ammonia are evaluated similarly regarding certain safety aspects however, there isdifferentiation in the level of safety between methanol and ammonia, which more detailed assessments can illustratebetter. So, while both fuels are evaluated with the option “Meets criterion - can be improved” they perform on different
ends of that option.
Furthermore, data availability related to green ammonia on safety during bunkering, onboard storage and use,aggregated safety considerations and disposal is expected to improve with more research and experience throughdemonstration projects and pilots.
Level of meeting sub-criteria within Security

Security - meets criterion?

Priority

Fossil MGO

Fossil LNG

Bio-methanol

GreenAmmonia

Security during production

0.75

1.50

1.50

1.50

0.75

Security during land storage

0.75

1.50

1.50

1.50

0.75

Security during land
distribution

0.75

1.50

1.50

1.50

0.75

Security during bunkering

0.75

1.50

1.50

1.50

0.75

Security during onboard
usage

0.75

1.50

1.50

0.75

0.75

Security during disposal

0.75

1.50

1.50

1.50

0.75

Level of data availability within Security

Security - data available?

Priority

Fossil MGO

Fossil LNG

Bio-methanol

GreenAmmonia

Security during production

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.75

Security during land storage

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.75

Security during land
distribution

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.75

Security during bunkering

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.00

Security during onboard
usage

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.00

Security during disposal

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.75

Green ammonia trails in meeting the sub-criteria related to security due to possible malicious actions which areconsidered easier-to-perform than for other fuels due to the toxicity of ammonia.
Level of meeting sub-criteria within Economic feasibility

Economic feasibility meets criterion?

Priority

Fossil MGO

Fossil LNG

Bio-methanol

GreenAmmonia

Cost of storage (on land)

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Cost of storage (onboard)

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Cost of production

1.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

Cost of distribution

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Technical complexity of
distribution

0.75

1.50

0.75

1.50

0.75

Complexity of retrofitting

0.50

1.00

0.50

0.50

0.50

Impact on ship operation

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Availability (quantity)

1.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

8 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy CarriersLevel of data availability within Economic feasibility

Economic feasibility data available?

Priority

Fossil MGO

Fossil LNG

Bio-methanol

GreenAmmonia

Cost of storage (on land)

1.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

2.00

Cost of storage (onboard)

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

2.00

Cost of production

1.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

Cost of distribution

1.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

2.00

Technical complexity of
distribution

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.75

Complexity of retrofitting

0.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

0.00

Impact on ship operation

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

Availability (quantity)

1.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

Low data availability for assessing economic feasibility criteria for bio-methanol and green ammonia, and to a certain
extent also for fossil LNG, indicates an urgent need for more research and development and real-life pilots delivering
more reliable economic estimates, in particular addressing cost of production and fuel availability.
It is noted that the level of meeting sub-criteria “complexity of retrofitting” and “impact on ship operation” for fossil MGO
was labeled as “no assessment needed.” For the purpose of translating the qualitative assessment to numerical values,
this assessment was translated into “meeting criterion.”
Level of meeting sub-criteria within Regulatory and People

Regulatory and People- meets criterion?

Priority

Fossil MGO

Fossil LNG

Bio-methanol

GreenAmmonia

R: Complexity of resulting
regulation (onboard focus)

0.75

1.50

1.50

0.75

0.00

R: Regulatory compatibility
between nations

0.75

1.50

1.50

0.00

0.00

R; Regulator interfaces(internal to singular nations)

0.75

1.50

1.50

0.00

0.00

R: Complexity of production,
storage and distribution
regulations (on land)

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.75

P: Skill base and competency
within production, distribution
and storage industry

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.75

P: Certification and training
within maritime industry

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.00

P: Social acceptance

0.75

0.00

0.75

0.75

0.75

Note that the combination of high-level criteria Regulatory and People has been done only with the aim to deliver amore compact visualization in this section.

9 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy CarriersLevel of data availability within Regulatory and People

Regulatory and People- data available?

Priority

Fossil MGO

Fossil LNG

Bio-methanol

GreenAmmonia

R: Complexity of resulting
regulation (onboard focus)

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.00

R: Regulatory compatibility
between nations

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.00

R; Regulator interfaces(internal to singular nations)

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.00

R: Complexity of production,
storage and distribution
regulations (on land)

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.75

P: Skill base and competency
within production, distribution
and storage industry

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

1.50

P: Certification and training
within maritime industry

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.00

P: Social acceptance

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.00

It is easy to observe that novel low-carbon fuels such as bio-methanol and green ammonia cannot meet the sub-criteria
under the Regulatory category since relevant regulations are not in yet in place, which is expected to change with theongoing developments at IMO. Similarly, training and certification of crew onboard ships using ammonia is also not yet
available.
Level of meeting sub-criteria within Technology and Engineering

Technology andEngineering - meets
criterion?

Priority

Fossil MGO

Fossil LNG

Bio-methanol

GreenAmmonia

T: Current technology
readiness

0.50

1.00

1.00

0.50

0.50

T: Potential trajectory oftechnology readiness

0.75

1.50

1.50

1.50

0.75

E: Engineering complexity(production, installation,
decommissioning)

0.50

1.00

1.00

0.50

0.50

E: Availability

0.75

1.50

1.50

0.75

0.75

E: Reliability

0.75

1.50

1.50

0.75

0.75

E: Maintainability

0.50

1.00

1.00

0.50

0.50

E: Logistics / supportability

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

0.75

E: Interoperability

0.75

1.50

1.50

0.75

0.75

E: Quality standards

0.75

1.50

1.50

0.75

0.75

10 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

Note that the combination of high-level criteria Technology and Engineering has been done only with the aim to delivera more compact visualization in this section.
Level of data availability within Technology and Engineering

Technology andEngineering - data
available?

Priority

Fossil MGO

Fossil LNG

Bio-methanol

GreenAmmonia

T: Current technology
readiness

0.50

1.00

1.00

0.50

0.50

T: Potential trajectory oftechnology readiness

0.75

1.50

1.50

0.75

0.75

E: Engineering complexity(production, installation,
decommissioning)

0.50

1.00

1.00

0.50

0.00

E: Availability

0.75

1.50

1.50

0.75

0.00

E: Reliability

0.75

1.50

1.50

0.00

0.00

E: Maintainability

0.50

1.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

E: Logistics / supportability

0.75

0.75

1.50

0.75

0.75

E: Interoperability

0.75

1.50

1.50

0.75

0.75

E: Quality standards

0.75

1.50

1.50

0.75

0.00

Low data availability for green ammonia and bio-methanol reduces the levels of meeting sub-criteria for Technology
and Engineering. Again, demonstration projects and pilots will improve this situation.
The following pages present the detailed assessment results in tabular form as reference.

11 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

HIGHERHIGHER

This is the ecologicaland social impact(externalities) arising
as a result of
production
scenarios.

This is the ecologicaland social impact(externalities) arising
as a result of
bunkering scenarios,
considering
shore-to-ship andship-to-ship
bunkering.

This is the ecologicaland social impact(externalities) arising
as a result of
onboard use
scenarios.

Ecologicaland social
impact(externalities)
in production
scenarios

Ecologicaland social
impact(externalities)
in storage &distribution
scenarios

Ecologicaland social
impact(externalities)
in bunkering
scenarios

Ecologicaland social
impact(externalities)
in onboard
use scenarios

Sustainability&
Environmental

Sustainability&
Environmental

Sustainability&
Environmental

Sustainability&
Environmental

2

3

4

5

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available
andorganized

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Fail

Fail

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil MGO

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

FAIL

FAIL

Fossil LNG
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil LNG
Fossil LNG
Assessment- Dataavailability

12 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

HIGHERHIGHER

This is the ecologicaland social impact(externalities) arising
as a result of
production
scenarios.

Greenhousegas emission

Sustainability&
Environmental

1

HIGHER

Well-to-wakegreenhouse gas
emissions from theproduction, storage& distribution, use
and disposal of thetechnology and/or
energy carrier.

Sub criteria

Explanation /Additional notes

Criteria(high level)

Priority(mandatory,high,medium,low)

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available
andorganized

BioMethanol
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Biomethanol
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Bio-methanol

Insufficientdata

Insufficientdata

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Green Ammonia

MEDIUMHIGHERHIGHERHIGHER

This relates toresilience within thesystem (including
within its supply
chain and value
chain) in relation
to shocks anddisruptions which
can happen in themarket, ecologically,
etc.

This considers thelevel of safety,
achieved andachievable, during
production.

This considers thelevel of safety,
achieved andachievable, during
land distribution.

This considers thelevel of safety,
achieved andachievable, during
land storage.

Recyclability
and disposal

Resilience toshocks anddisruptions (inmarket,ecological,
etc; notphysical)

Safety during
production

Safety during
land
distribution

Safety during
land storage

Sustainability&
Environmental

Sustainability&
Environmental

SafetySafetySafety

6

7

8

9

10

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil MGO

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Fossil LNG
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil LNG
Fossil LNG
Assessment- Dataavailability

13 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

HIGHER

This is therecyclability andwaste aspects,
within production
scenario, whenin service (via
operation andmaintenance), andalso when it comesto end of life, relating
to the energy carrieror technology.
Includes all impacts
from disposal at endof system life.

Sub criteria

Explanation /Additional notes

Criteria(high level)

Priority(mandatory,high,medium,low)

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Insufficientdata

Available,
needs
processing

BioMethanol
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Biomethanol
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Bio-methanol

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Insufficientdata

Available,
needs
processing

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Fail

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Green Ammonia

Safety

Safety12

13

HIGHERHIGHERHIGHER

Explanation /Additional notes

This considers thelevel of safety,
achieved andachievable, during
bunkering, including
all modes ofbunkering.

This considers thelevel of safety,
achieved andachievable, during
onboard storage (onthe vessel).

This considers thelevel of safety,
achieved andachievable, during
onboard use (onthe vessel). This
includes during all
onboard-use
scenarios (underway,
at anchor, in port,
dry dock, etc), andincludes operationand maintenance.

Sub criteria

Safety during
bunkering

Safety during
onboardstorage

Safety during
onboardusage

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil MGO

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Fossil LNG
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil LNG
Fossil LNG
Assessment- Dataavailability

14 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

Safety11

Criteria(high level)

Priority(mandatory,high,medium,low)

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

BioMethanol
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Biomethanol
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Bio-methanol

Insufficientdata

Insufficientdata

Insufficient
data

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Green Ammonia

MEDIUM

This is the expectedchange oftechnology
readiness level overtime. This contributes
to the assessment by
providinginformation on thelevel of technology
availability.

Potential
trajectory oftechnology
readiness

Technology
StatusTechnology
Status16

17

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil MGO

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Fossil LNG
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil LNG
Fossil LNG
Assessment- Dataavailability

15 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

LOWER

This is the technology
readiness level at thetime of assessment.

Currenttechnology
readiness

Safety15

HIGHER

This considers thelevel of safety,
achieved andachievable, during
disposal.

Aggregatedsafetyconsidderations

Safety during
disposal

HIGHER

The level of safety
may be affected by
the environment
outside the vessel
itself. This considers
the level of safety
achieved andachievable when
you go beyond one
singular vessel, suchas when you look at
multiple vessels inthe same location(e.g. port,
anchorage, etc).
This criterion is more
relevant to energy
carriers, and less soto technology.
Facets such as how
energy carriers are
stored andtransported in
the aggregatedquantities they need
to be in are relevantin the overall safety
consideration.

Sub criteria

SafetyExplanation /Additional notes

14

Criteria(high level)

Priority(mandatory,high,medium,low)

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Insufficientdata

BioMethanol
Assessment- Dataavailability

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion

Insufficientdata

Insufficient
data

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Green Ammonia

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Biomethanol
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Bio-methanol

Security

Security

Security

Security

Security

Economic
Feasibility

19

20

21

22

23

24

MEDIUM

MEDIUM

MEDIUM

MEDIUM

MEDIUM

This considers thelevel of security
required andachievable during
land storage.

This considers thelevel of security
required andachievable during
land distribution.

This considers thelevel of security
required andachievable during
bunkering, including
all modes ofbunkering.

This considers thelevel of security
required andachievable during
onboard usage. This
includes during
all onboard use
scenarios (underway,
at anchor, in port,
dry dock, etc) andincludes operationand maintenance.

This considers thelevel of security
required andachievable during
disposal.

This relates to thecost of storage
on land.

Security
during land
storage

Security
during land
distribution

Security
duringbunkering

Security
duringonboardusage

Security
duringdisposal

Cost ofstorage (onland)
HIGHERMEDIUM

This considers thelevel of security
required andachievable during
production.

Security
duringproduction

Sub criteria

Explanation /Additional notes

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil MGO

Available
andorganized

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

BioMethanol
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Biomethanol
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Bio-methanol

Meetscriterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Fossil LNG
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil LNG
Fossil LNG
Assessment- Dataavailability

16 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

Security

18

Criteria(high level)

Priority(mandatory,high,medium,low)

Available
andorganized

Available,
needs
processing

Insufficientdata

Insufficientdata

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Green Ammonia

HIGHERMEDIUMLOWER

HIGHER

This relates to thecost of distribution.

This is how
technically complex
it will be to achieve
distribution in thequantities required.

This is the complexityof applying this inretrofit scenarios.

This is the impact of
the technology, or
energy carrier, on
ship operations.
This will differ withdifferent ship types
and uses. Below acertain threshold it
will not be viable
to progress atechnology / energy
carrier because thenegative impact will
be too high.

Cost ofdistribution

Technical
complexity of
distribution

Complexityof retrofitting

Impact on
ship
operation

Economic
Feasibility

Economic
Feasibility

Economic
Feasibility

Economic
Feasibility

28

29

30

Meets
criterion

Available
andorganized

Assessment
not needed

Assessment
not needed

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Meets
criterion

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Available
andorganized

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Dataavailability

Fossil MGO

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available
andorganized

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Available,
needs
processing

Insufficientdata

Available,
needs
processing

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Insufficient
data

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

BioMethanol
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Fail

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Biomethanol
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Bio-methanol

Fossil LNG
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil LNG
Fossil LNG
Assessment- Dataavailability

17 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

HIGHER

27

This relates to thecost of production.

Cost ofproduction

Economic
Feasibility

HIGHER

26

This relates to thecost of storage
onboard.

Cost ofstorage(onboard)

Economic
Feasibility

Sub criteria

Explanation /Additional notes

25

Criteria(high level)

Priority(mandatory,high,medium,low)

Insufficientdata

Insufficientdata

Available,
needs
processing

Available
andorganized

Insufficientdata

Available
andorganized

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Fail

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Green Ammonia

MEDIUM

MEDIUM

MEDIUM

This is complexityof the regulatory
aspects relating
to onboard; theimplementation ofit, plus potential
cost of changes.

This is the level ofcompatibility
between multiple
nations whenit comes toregulation.

This is the look of thecomplexity of thelandscape withregard to regulatoryinterfaces between
where jurisdictions
meet (jurisdictions
internal to one
nation, rather thancompatibility/
complexity of
regulation between
nations). For
example, where
the ship to shore
regulatory interface
exists.

Availability(quantity)

Complexityof resulting
regulation(onboard
focus)

Regulatorycompatibility
betweennations

Economic
Feasibility

Regulatory

Regulatory

Regulatory

31

32

33

34

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil MGO

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Fossil LNG
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil LNG
Fossil LNG
Assessment- Dataavailability

18 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

Regulator
interfaces(internal tosingularnations)

HIGHER

This is the availability,
in terms of quantity.
Depending on thetechnology orenergy carrier,availability could
be limited due toavailability of anelement within it.
Cost to scale up
availability would
be included.

Sub criteria

Explanation /Additional notes

Criteria(high level)

Priority(mandatory,high,medium,low)

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Insufficientdata

BioMethanol
Assessment- Dataavailability

Fail

Fail

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Fail

Biomethanol
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Bio-methanol

Insufficientdata

Insufficientdata

Insufficientdata

Insufficient
data

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Dataavailability

Fail

Fail

Fail

Fail

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Green Ammonia

PeoplePeoplePeople36

37

38

MEDIUM

MEDIUM

MEDIUM

MEDIUM

Explanation /Additional notes

This is complexity of
the implementationof the regulations
relating to
production, storage
and distribution.
This includes
consideration of thecost associated withthat complexity.

This is the level ofchange that would
be required,regarding theskill base andcompetency
within production,
distribution andstorage industry, inorder to accept the
new technology orenergy carrier
into service.

This is to the levelof change thatwould be required,regarding thecertification andtraining for maritime
industry personnel, inorder to accept the
new technology orenergy carrier into
service.

This concerns thesocial acceptanceof the technology
or energy carrier inquestion. It also
includes whether it isaligned with othersectors in drive todecarbonization, or
if it is misaligned.

Sub criteria

Complexityofproduction,
storage anddistribution
regulations(on land)

Skill base andcompetency
withinproduction,
distribution
and storage
industry

Certification& Training
withinMaritime
industry

Socialacceptance

Available,
needs
processing

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Dataavailability

Fail

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil MGO

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Fossil LNG
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil LNG
Fossil LNG
Assessment- Dataavailability

19 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

Regulatory

35

Criteria(high level)

Priority(mandatory,high,medium,low)

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

BioMethanol
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Biomethanol
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Bio-methanol

Insufficientdata

Insufficientdata

Available
andorganized

Available,
needs
processing

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Fail

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Green Ammonia

Engineering

Engineering

Engineering

40

41

42

MEDIUM

MEDIUM

LOWER

This is theengineering
complexity relating
to bringing thetechnology orenergy carrier into
service.

Availability is themeasure of an item/
system’s readinessfor use. It is afunction of thereliability andmaintainability
attributes of thesystem/item, andthe level andeffectiveness ofthe support
arrangements inplace. Preventative
maintenance may
be considered aspart of theavailability
calculation.

Reliability relates
to an item/system
working to its fullcapability (design
capability) when
it's required to.

Maintainability
relates to thedifficulty of repairing
things once they
have a problem.
Therefore, it does notinclude preventative
maintenance, butdoes incorporate thenotion of corrective
maintenance.

Sub criteria

Engineering
complexity(production,
installation,
decommissioning)

Reliability

Maintainability

Availability

LOWER

Explanation /Additional notes

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil MGO

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Fossil LNG
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil LNG
Fossil LNG
Assessment- Dataavailability

20 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy CarriersEngineering

39

Criteria(high level)

Priority(mandatory,high,medium,low)

Insufficientdata

Insufficientdata

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

BioMethanol
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Biomethanol
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Bio-methanol

Insufficientdata

Insufficientdata

Insufficientdata

Insufficient
data

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Green Ammonia

Engineering

44

Interoperability

Logistics /supportability

Sub criteria

This concerns theinteroperability
surrounding thetechnology orenergy carrier. For
example, shore
power connection
compatibility. Also,
can you buy thesame fuel in all
countries, etc?

It can also include
aspects such as
consideration toconnections for data
for maintenance,
diagnostics,
calibration, etc.

This is affects the
supply chain, acrossall required locations
and how complex
that is and what isrequired to achieve
it. This relates moreto the support supply
chain, rather than
the initial productionof the item.

For example, howsimple is it to get
support (parts, labor,etc) in different
worldwide locations,as well as constraints
around that (cost,time, complexity,
etc).

This looks at the
aspects required inorder to support theitem, including theircomplexity.

Explanation /Additional notes

MEDIUM

MEDIUM

Available
andorganized

Available,
needs
processing

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil MGO

Available
andorganized

Available
andorganized

Meets
criterion

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Fossil LNG
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil LNG
Fossil LNG
Assessment- Dataavailability

21 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy CarriersEngineering

43

Criteria(high level)

Priority(mandatory,high,medium,low)

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

BioMethanol
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Biomethanol
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Bio-methanol

Available,
needs
processing

Available,
needs
processing

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Green Ammonia

Engineering

MEDIUM

Explanation /Additional notes

This concerns safety
aspects as a result ofquality, as well ascompatibility(internationally) as aresult of quality, etc.
This can apply fortechnologies andalso energy carriers.

Sub criteria

Qualitystandards

Available
andorganized

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion

Fossil MGO
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil MGO

Available
andorganized
Meets
criterion

Fossil LNG
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Fossil LNG
Fossil LNG
Assessment- Dataavailability

22 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

45

Criteria(high level)

Priority(mandatory,high,medium,low)

Available,
needs
processing

BioMethanol
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Biomethanol
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Bio-methanol

Insufficient
data

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Dataavailability

Meets
criterion can be
improved

Green
Ammonia
Assessment- Meets
criterion?

Green Ammonia

Appendix 2 – MTF Framework Criteria• Greenhouse gas emission• Ecological and social impact (externalities) in production scenarios

Sustainability &Environmental• Ecological and social impact (externalities) in storage & distribution scenarios• Ecological and social impact (externalities) in bunkering scenarios• Ecological and social impact (externalities) in onboard use scenarios• Recyclability and disposal• Resilience to shocks and disruptions (in market, ecological, etc; not physical)• Safety during production• Safety during land distribution• Safety during land storage

Safety• Safety during bunkering• Safety during onboard storage• Safety during onboard usage• Aggregated safety considerations• Safety during disposal

Technology Status• Current technology readiness• Potential trajectory of technology readiness• Security during production• Security during land storage

Security• Security during land distribution• Security during bunkering• Security during onboard usage• Security during disposal• Cost of storage (on land)• Cost of storage (onboard)• Cost of production

Economic Feasibility• Cost of distribution• Technical complexity of distribution• Complexity of retrofitting• Impact on ship operation• Availability (quantity)• Complexity of resulting regulation (onboard focus)

Regulatory• Regulatory compatibility between nations• Regulator interfaces (internal to singular nations)• Complexity of production, storage and distribution regulations (on land)• Skill base and competency within production, distribution and storage industry

People• Certification & Training within Maritime industry• Social acceptance• Engineering complexity (production, installation, decomissioning)• Availability• Reliability

Engineering• Maintainability• Logistics / supportability• Interoperability• Quality standards

23 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers

Acknowledgements:• Joshua Padeti, ABS• Ashley Stehr, Maritime and Coastguard Agency, United Kingdom• Bjørn Mikkel Rygh, Norwegian Maritime Authority• Pierre Sames, DNV• Simen Diserud Mildal, Norwegian Maritime Authority• Tore Longva, DNV• Yuki Yoshida, ClassNK• Georgios Plevrakis, ABS• Georgios Kasimatis, DNV• Saskia Daggett, Maritime and Coastguard Agency, United Kingdom• Andrew Sillitoe, LR

24 | Fuels Evaluation through the MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers