UPDATED FUELSEVALUATION THROUGH
THE MTF FRAMEWORKFOR ASSESSINGDECARBONIZATIONTECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY CARRIERSUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Executive SummaryThe ‘2023 IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships’ sets out the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO)
ambitions for decreasing carbon emissions to be net zero (or near) by 2050. The relative importance of alternative fuels willgrow to achieve the necessary decarbonization. At the same time, there is still uncertainty in the industry as to whichalternative fuel option will support a future-proof asset and operation. There is also a widely available view that the future
maritime fuel mix might not be dominated by a single fuel as it is today, but rather will see several fuels in use.
In 2022, MTF published an initial evaluation of four fuels (Fossil MGO, Fossil LNG, Bio-Methanol & Green Ammonia) and has
extended that work with the present report by adding four additional fuels (Fossil MGO+CCS, Liquefied Bio Methane,
Green Synthetic Methanol & Liquefied Blue Hydrogen), carefully chosen to complement the previously selected fuels andenabling multiple comparisons across fuel groups, fossil vs low carbon/carbon neutral and bio vs synthetic fuels. The MTF
Framework has also been recently updated to account for the lessons learned in the first application, and, as such, alleight fuels are assessed against the updated criteria.
When compared to the baseline fuel, fossil MGO, all alternative fuels show lower GHG emission intensities[1] although
values for biofuels and hydrogen-based synthetic fuels depend on details in production pathways. When looking at the
number of barriers to adoption, biofuels and green synthetic methanol were found to have fewer than green ammonia
or liquefied (blue) hydrogen.
Table 1. Summary of GHG Emission Intensity and Number of Barriers to Adoption

Item

FossilMGO

Fossil LNG

FossilMGO+
CCS

LiquefiedBlue
Hydrogen

Liquefied
BioMethane

Green
Synthetic
MethanolGreen
Ammonia

Bio
MethanolGHG
emission
intensity(gCO 2 eq/
MJ)

90.6

84.9

49.5

37

31.5

28.5

27.5

14

Number of
barriers to
adoption

2

2

18

24

1

5

17

4

2 Maritime Technologies ForumUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Five main observations emerged, which include high priority suggestions for the industry.
1. Well-to-Wake GHG emission performance is critical in the long term. The use of biofuels and hydrogen-based solutions
will provide lower lifecycle emissions (potentially zero or near zero when using sustainable energy sources).
2. Safety needs careful management for some hydrogen-based synthetic fuels. There is a moderate amount of data
available for using ammonia and hydrogen as fuel. Most of this data is from other industries, or the carriage of fuelon liquified gas carriers. Additional research and studies are needed to further reduce or fully mitigate the associatedrisks addressing bunkering and onboard handling for these alternative solutions as fuels.
3. The need for additional training related to handling of more hazardous alternative fuels is reconfirmed. Training, safety
awareness and management practices need to develop to similar levels seen onshore for these hazardous fuels.
4. Technology for many fuel options is available with high maturity. In terms of technology readiness, all solutions
considered as demonstrated, or proven, in a relevant environment (TRL 6 or above). Use of ammonia and CCS stillneeds to be proven to reach a sufficient TRL for commercial uptake. Retrofits are generally possible with varying
engineering complexity.
5. Supply Chain Resilience is not known for biofuels and hydrogen-based synthetic fuels. Supply chain resilience has
been evaluated as low on confidence for all the biofuels and hydrogen-based fuels considered, and currently as not
feasible for green ammonia. This is accounting for the current limited fuel availability.

Introduction
The Maritime Technologies Forum (MTF) is a group of flag States and classification societies which aims to bridge the gap
between technological progress and regulatory process. This report provides recommendations to industry stakeholders
toward safe adoption of alternative fuels onboard ships in line with MTF’s purpose.
The MTF has recently updated its Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers.
Using this, an expanded evaluation of eight fuel solutions has been undertaken as a collaborative exercise within MTF thatassesses the feasibility of proposed alternative energy carriers expected to drive the decarbonization of the maritime
industry.
The present report is based on the updated framework and extends the evaluation of future alternative fuels performed in
the previous report with four additional fuels, as listed in Table 3. The second set of fuels were selected to complement thefirst set in building fuel groups. With these choices, multiple comparisons are becoming possible: fossil vs low carbon orcarbon neutral fuels, pairwise comparison within each group, bio vs synthetic fuels, as well as adding carbon capture
options for fuel production and onboard.
Table 2: Fuels Selected for Evaluation [with Fuel Pathway Codes from the LCA Guidelines]
Round 1Round 2

Group
Fuel Selected

Draft IMO Fuel Code [1]Fuel Selected

Draft IMO Fuel Code [1]DieselFossil MGO

MDO/MGO(VLSFO)_f_SR_gm

FossilMGO+CCS

MDO/MGO(VLSFO)_f_r_CP_gm*

MethaneFossil LNG

LNG_f_SLP_gm

Liquefied Bio
Methane

LNG_b_AD_gm

Methanol

Bio-Methanol

MeOH_b_G_MS_gm

Green
Synthetic
Methanol

MeOH_fCO 2 _rH2_MS_gm*

Hydrogen/Ammonia

Green
Ammonia

NH 3_rN 2 _rH2_HB_gm

LiquefiedBlue
HydrogenH 2 _f_SMR_CCS_gm** Closest code available

3 Maritime Technologies ForumUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

The MTF Framework provides a holistic view of the elements that should be considered in such an analysis and thisreport represents the second application to a select group of fuels, including fossil fuels as an existing baseline. This
report highlights risks associated with certain fuels and technologies, as well as existing knowledge and data gaps.
This report:• Starts with a comprehensive approach to evaluate a selection 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 around regulatory and rule development
This report is intended for broad use among maritime industry stakeholders, including ship owners, charterers,
shipyards, equipment suppliers, flag states, classification societies, intergovernmental organizations and sustainability
certification bodies.
Work at IMO is progressing towards a future Marine Fuel Life Cycle GHG Analysis and an initial list of 101 fuel pathways
have been identified in a recent report[2]. The Nordic Roadmap project[3] has provided a life cycle assessmentof potential zero-carbon fuels in the Nordic context, addressing well-to-wake GHG emissions as well as otherenvironmental impacts. The Sustainable Shipping Initiative[4] has outlined sustainability issues, principles and criteria
developed according to different feedstocks and primary energy sources for zero and low carbon marine fuels. A
study[5] by Ricardo and DNV reported on the readiness and availability of low- and zero-carbon ship technology andmarine fuels The Lloyd’s Register zero-carbon fuel monitor[6] recently showed an average increase in readiness acrossall fuels and supply chain stages from three perspectives: technology (TRL), investment (IRL) and community (CRL).

Methodology
The fuels evaluation against the updated MTF framework criteria was done through a series of workshops. Whileevaluating these fuels, feedback was sought from all MTF members individually, prior to a workshop that was
conducted to aggregate results for each subcategory.
The evaluation was performed using all 33 sub-criteria laid out in the MTF Framework which are categorized into eighthigh-level criteria: GHG emission, technology, environmental sustainability, safety, economic viability, regulatory
maturity, skills availability and engineering.
The categories of environmental sustainability, safety, economic viability, regulatory maturity and skills availability arefurther divided into the same four parts of the supply chain: production, storage and distribution; bunkering; onboard
storage and use; and disposal.
For each sub-criterion, data/evidence availability (i.e. confidence) and the feasibility of the solution to meet criteria
were assessed using the grading options shown in Table 4. The exceptions are the GHG emission intensity provided asa numerical value in grams CO 2 eq per MJ of energy, and the technology readiness level provided as a numericalvalue between 1 and 9.
It is the intention of MTF to quote GHG emission intensity values, well-to-wake (WtW), from the default values of therelevant pathway in the IMO Guidelines on Life Cycle GHG Intensity of Marine Fuels (LCA Guidelines). At the time of
preparing this report, default GHG intensity values are not yet defined for all of the fuels considered. In the interim,
default values are taken from the FuelEU Maritime Regulations for fossil MGO (baseline) and Grey LNG, with the
Ricardo and DNV study[4] used for all other fuel solutions represented as a median value from the range reported.

4 Maritime Technologies ForumUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Table 3: Description of grading options

Dimension

Feasibility
Assessment

Grading(Key to Results)

Description

High (Dark Blue)The solution fully meets the criterion.

Medium (Mid blue)

The solution meets the criterion but can be upgraded further.

Low (Light Blue)The solution requires significant developments to achieve thecriterion, but is expected to be able to meet it in the future

Not Feasible (White)

The solution does not meet the criterion and is not expected to beable to meet it in the future.

High (●●●)

The data availability is high and there is robust evidence for theassessment.

Medium (●●)

There is data available and there is medium evidence for theassessment.

Low (●)The data availability is low and there is limited evidence for theassessment.

Insufficient data (no data)

Insufficient data means that no or limited data is available for
evaluation against the criterion.

Confidence
Level

Assumptions and Limitations
When no information was readily available, the MTF members made reasonable assumptions to complete the exercise.
The opinions and options represent the best judgement of the members based on their experience and expertise. Thisevaluation considers a broad range of aspects relating to each fuel and it is worth noting that the MTF members
predominantly have expertise in engineering and regulation.
The options available and fuels considered were predetermined through a collaborative effort. Members wereencouraged to make their choices using the available options. Although for some sub criteria the options are arguably
less applicable than others, and the number of them limit the granularity of the scoring, they were chosen to allow theevaluation to proceed in a timely manner.

Disclaimer
The results here are a collaborative effort between participating MTF members. Each organization within the forum may
have an 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.

5 Maritime Technologies ForumUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Summary of Results
With fossil MGO as the base case, the group compared existing and new/emerging fuels through the MTF Framework.
The results for all eight fuels are summarized below with detailed results for each fuel presented in Appendix A.
The GHG emission intensity value is the primary criterion when considering the objective is to reach IMO’s decarbonization
targets. Whilst single values are presented in Table 4, these represent a median value from published values in in Appendix
1[4]. For Fossil MGO + CCS we assume a 30% fuel penalty and a 90% CO2 capture rate. Further evaluation of the fuelsconsiders that it must be produced according to this GHG emission intensity.
In reviewing the results there are obvious and well-known trends identified. In terms of technology readiness, all solutions
considered are demonstrated, or proven, in a relevant environment (TRL 6 or above) so it can be concluded that this is
not a barrier to adoption for any of the solutions.
The level of confidence reduces with new and emerging fuels where the operational experience is limited or non-existent.
This indicates a need for more research and development, as well as pilots, to close the knowledge gaps. Secondly, thefeasibility of hydrogen-based synthetic fuels needs to be improved, particularly in terms of cost in establishing robust
infrastructure for production, storage and distribution. A key factor for any of the alternative fuels considered is theavailability of fuel and scalability of production and distribution to meet demand, considering that the marine industry
will be competing against demand from other industries.
There are 3 instances where a solution has been marked as ‘not feasible – cannot be improved’:
1. Fossil MGO – ‘social acceptance’ as doing nothing is not acceptable for the industry or wider society. Noting that thesustainability of production, storage and distribution is also ‘not feasible – can be improved’ for all fossil fuels.
2. Grey LNG – ‘social acceptance’ as above.
3. Liquified Blue Hydrogen – complexity of retrofitting, as greater storage volumes would be required with limited space,complete fuel supply system replacement.
Although it is believed that the low carbon fuels such as green ammonia can meet the sustainability goals, the current
small-scale production (and projects) as well as gaps in related regulations and standards lead these to have a ‘notfeasible – can be improved’ grading when compared to more established fuels.
Safety is a key area that also requires improvement across new / emerging fuels in terms of hazards associated withbunkering and onboard use, recognizing that for fuels like ammonia and hydrogen more needs to be done on a risk
assessment level to address consequence effects and to justify their use. This also links to training, especially for seafarers,
where a greater understanding of the major hazard potential is needed similar to other process industries.
This is further illustrated by the low confidence and feasibility grading on the skills availability for onboard criterion
considering both green ammonia and liquefied blue hydrogen. One item discussed during the assessment was whether
training should be graded low for everything that does not have a ‘model course’ provided by IMO and graded high foreverything that does. In the end, it was decided to take a view that although ammonia and hydrogen, for example, do
not have model courses, there can be a lot of cross pollination from the training of the carriage of ammonia as a cargo
and use of LNG as a fuel for example.
Summary Results Figure Legend:

Very Feasible●●●

High Confidence

Feasible – Can Be Further Improved●●

Medium Confidence

Not Feasible – Can Be Improved●

Low Confidence

Not Feasible – Cannot Be Improved

6 Maritime Technologies Forum

Insufficient DataUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Category

Criterion

Fossil MGO

Grey LNG

Fossil MGO+CCS

Liquefied
Bio-Methane

BioMethanol

Green Synthetic
MethanolGreen Ammonia

Liquefied Blue
HydrogenTable 4: Summary of Results Against the MTF Framework

Greenhouse
Gas Emission(GHG)

Greenhouse
Gas emission intensity(gCO 2 eq/MJ)

90.6

84.9

49.5

31.5

14

28.5

27.5

37

Current technology
readiness level

TRL 9

TRL 9

TRL 6

TRL 9

TRL 8

TRL 7

TRL 6

TRL 7

Expected technology
readiness levelin five years

TRL 9

TRL 9

TRL 8

TRL 9

TRL 9

TRL 8

TRL 8

TRL 8

Social acceptance

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

Supply chain resilience

●●●

●●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

Security against malicious
actions

●●●

●●

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Sustainability of
production, storage
and distribution

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Sustainability of bunkering

●●●

●●

●●●

●●●

●●

●●

●

●

Sustainability of onboard
storage and use

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

Recyclability andsustainability of disposal

●●●

●●

●

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●

Safety during production,
storage and distribution

●●●

●●

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

Safety during bunkering

●●●

●●

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●

Safety during onboard
storage and use

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

Safety during disposal

●●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Cost of production,
storage and distribution

●●●

●●●

●●●

●●●

●●

●

●

●●

Cost of bunkering

●●●

●●●

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Cost of onboard storage
and use

●●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

Cost of disposal

●●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Technology

Environmental
Sustainability

SafetyEconomic
Viability

7 Maritime Technologies ForumBioMethanol

Green Synthetic
MethanolGreen Ammonia

Liquefied Blue
HydrogenEngineering

Liquefied
Bio-Methane

Skills availability

Fossil MGO+CCS

Regulatory
maturity

Criterion

Grey LNG

Category

Fossil MGO

UPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Maturity of regulations
related to production,
storage and distribution

●●●

●●

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

Maturity of regulations
related to bunkering

●●●

●●

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

Maturity of regulations
related to onboard
storage and use

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

Maturity of regulations
related to disposal

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

Skill base andcompetency for
production, storage anddistribution

●●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●●

●

Skill base andcompetency forbunkering

●●●

●●

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

Skill base andcompetency onboard
storage and use

●●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

Skill base andcompetency for disposal

●●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Engineering complexity(production, installation,
decommissioning)

●●●

●●●

●

●●●

●●

●●

●

Complexity of retrofitting

●●●

●●

●

●●

●

●

Availability

●●●

●●●

●

●●●

●●

●

Reliability

●●●

●●●

●

●●●

●

●

Maintainability

●●●

●●●

●

●●●

●

●

Logistics/supportability

●●●

●●●

●

●●●

●●

●●

Quality standards

●●●

●●●

●

●●●

●●

●●

8 Maritime Technologies Forum

●●

●●

●

●

UPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Table 5 shows a summary of the feasibility barriers which include any fuel that is graded as “not feasible”.
Table 5: Summary of feasibility barriers
Category

Criterion

Feasibility barriersSocial acceptanceFossil MGO and Fossil LNG will not be able to sufficiently reduce GHG
emissions and may not be accepted in the future.

Supply chain resilience

A Green Ammonia supply chain may have low resilience due tovulnerability when scaling up a new solution

Sustainability of
production, storage anddistribution

Fossil MGO, Fossil LNG and Fossil MGO+CCS still relies on extraction offossil fuels

Recyclability andsustainability of disposal

Fossil MGO + CCS needs a disposal and storage infrastructure thatprevent the release of CO 2

Cost of production,
storage and distribution

Green Synthetic Methanol, Green Ammonia, Liquefied Blue Hydrogenall have large production costs

Cost of onboard storage
and use

Fossil MGO + CCS comes with a large fuel penalty and storage costs

Cost of disposal

Fossil MGO + CCS: the CO 2 must be disposed of and permanently
stored or utilised

Maturity of regulations
related to production,
storage and distribution

Liquefied Blue Hydrogen needs detailed regulations on production,
distribution and storage.

Maturity of regulations
related to onboard
storage and use

Fossil MGO + CCS lacks incentives for use in many regulations, andtogether with Green Ammonia also lacks safety standards.

Maturity of regulations
related to disposal

Fossil MGO + CCS has limited regulations and standard related todisposal and storage.

SkillsAvailability

Skill base andcompetency onboard
storage and use

Green Ammonia, Liquefied (Blue) Hydrogen lacks skilled seafarers

Engineering

Complexity of retrofitting

Liquefied (Blue) Hydrogen is likely not possible to retrofit

Technology

Environmental
Sustainability

Economic
Viability

Regulatory
Maturity

Figure 1 shows the number of barriers to adoption for each fuel as a bar chart with the GHG emission intensity (median)values plotted, including the possible range of intensity values indicated as an error bar. A barrier is defined on the basisthat either the feasibility is graded as one of the ‘not feasible’ options or has low/no confidence due to insufficient data
or evidence.
On review of Table 5 and Figure 1, the methanol fuel options are shown to have the least barriers to adoption, similar toexisting fossil fuels, which is largely due to the use of existing infrastructure for production, storage and distribution. The
barriers shown for technology and engineering are based on the low confidence scorings, as further evidence and useof methanol on large-scale projects is required. A barrier for the adoption of CCS and ammonia is the lack of regulations.
For CCS there is lack of incentives for the uptake, regulations for safe handling onboard and for disposal. For ammonia
and onboard CCS, the main issue is the lack of safety standards.
When considering the number of barriers to adoption, caution should be exercised as some barriers may be simpler toaddress or require less resources than others. The number of fuel solutions reaching TRL9, actual systems/fuels used in an
operational environment, will also influence this current viewpoint.

9 Maritime Technologies ForumUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Figure 1 Comparison of Fuels: Barriers and GHG emission intensity values

Conclusions and Future Work
Conclusions
The evaluation of fuels against the MTF Framework supports the idea that the future of international shipping will be a fuelmix depending on many factors such as ship type, function, operating environment and available fuel source /infrastructure. The following high-level observations are derived from the ‘Summary of Results’ across all eight solutions.
Observation # 1: Well-to-Wake GHG emission performance is critical in the long term
The GHG emission intensity value is the primary criterion when considering the objective is to reach IMO’s decarbonization
targets. The use of biofuels and hydrogen-based solutions will provide lower lifecycle emissions (potentially zero or nearzero when using sustainable energy sources).
Observation # 2: Safety needs careful management for some hydrogen-based synthetic fuels
Given the lower flashpoint and toxicity of some of these fuels results in the need for detailed safety studies/risk assessment
and using these findings to demonstrate equivalent level of safety to fuel oil.
There is a moderate amount of data available for using liquefied bio-methane, bio-methanol, green ammonia andhydrogen. Most of this data is from other industries, or the carriage of fuel on liquified gas carriers, with much of the safetyphilosophy and protection being utilized from these applications. Until more knowledge is acquired, additional researchand studies are needed to further reduce or fully mitigate the associated risks addressing the increased handling andinteractions when using alternative solutions as fuels.
Safety during bunkering for methanol, ammonia and hydrogen also needs to be improved.
Observation #3: The need for additional training related to handling of more hazardous alternative fuels is reconfirmed.
This safety observation also links to training and the need for safety awareness and management practices to develop to
similar levels seen onshore for these hazardous fuels. In terms of training, it has been observed that cross pollination fromexisting training courses, such as the carriage of ammonia as a cargo and use of LNG as a fuel, is possible.
Observation # 4: Technology for many fuel options is available with high maturity
Fossil fuels are well established solutions. In terms of technology readiness, all solutions considered as demonstrated, or
proven, in a relevant environment (TRL 6 or above) so it can be concluded that this alone is not a barrier to adoption. The
current technology readiness, and expected growth in readiness levels, is high for all evaluated fuels except green
ammonia and Fossil MGO & CCS. Use of ammonia and CCS still needs to be proven to reach a sufficient TRL forcommercial uptake. Retrofits are generally considered feasible with varying engineering complexity.

10 Maritime Technologies ForumUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Observation # 5: Supply Chain Resilience is not known for biofuels and hydrogen-based synthetic fuels
Supply chain resilience has been evaluated as low on confidence for all the biofuels and hydrogen-based fuelsconsidered, and currently as not feasible for green ammonia. This is accounting for the current limited fuel availability
and competing demands with other industries. This is a well-known issue within the industry, with much discussion on
ensuring a clear supply demand, and should be communicated to policy makers and fuel producers.

Future Work
Based on the discussions during the assessment, areas of future focus emerged:
1. The study identifies several criteria for which data is not sufficiently available, such as for green ammonia andbioMethanol as shown in Table 4, and failure to meet the assessment suggests the need for further research anddevelopment to enhance industry knowledge and support future decision making.
2. Additional fuel and power options may be added to the fuel evaluation to have a more complete basis for decision
making. It is noted that hybrid power options may be used with alternative fuels, thus a detailed analysis of the same
would be required eventually. The industry may adopt this framework for any variant of fuels and other fuels not partof this evaluation.

References[1] MEPC 80/7/4, Final report of the Correspondence Group on Marine Fuel Life Cycle GHG Analysis, 28 April 2023
[2] IMO MEPC 79/7/12, Interim report of the Correspondence Group on Marine Fuel Life Cycle GHG Analysis, 07 October
2022[3] Life Cycle Assessment of Marine Fuels in the Nordic Region – Task 1C, Nordic Roadmap Publication No.1-C/1/2023.
Available at https://futurefuelsnordic.com/life-cycle-assesment-of-selected-fuels/[4] Available at https://www.sustainableshipping.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Sustainability-criteria-of-marine-fuelsreport.pdf[5] Study on the readiness and availability of low- and zero-carbon ship technology and marine fuels, Ricardo and DNV,
April 2023. Published in MEPC 80/INF.10 and available at https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/
Future-Fuels-And-Technology.aspx[6] Zero Carbon Fuel Monitor, The Lloyd’s Register Maritime Decarbonisation Hub, July 2022 update [Published ZeroCarbon Fuel Monitor (lr.org)]

Acknowledgements:
The following team of specialists has contributed to the report:
Organization

Name

Contact

ABS

Joshua Padeti (Project Manager)

jpadeti@eagle.org

ClassNK

Naoya Haran-hara@classnk.or.jp

Norikazu Abe

abe@classnk.or.jp

Tore Longva

tore.longva@dnv.com

Pierre Samespierre.sames@dnv.com

LRLouise Wrightlouisehelen.wright@lr.org

MCA

John Boothjohn.booth@mcga.gov.uk

NMA

Bjørn Mikkel Ryghbmry@sdir.no

DNV

11 Maritime Technologies ForumUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Appendix 1 – Detailed Results by Fuel
Solution:

Fossil MGO [Fuel Pathway Code: MDO/MGO(VLSFO)_f_SR_gm]

Description: Standard crude oil refinery process using grid mix electricity.
Evaluation:

Not surprisingly, a mature fuel choice of fossil MGO is largely graded as ‘very feasible’ across the criteria,
except for social and environmental sustainability.

Very Feasible
Feasible – Can Be Further Improved

Well-to-wake●●Medium Confidence●

Low ConfidenceInsufficient Data

90.6 gCO2eq/MJ

Greenhouse gas emission intensity

Technology

DisposalHigh Confidence

Onboard Storage and use●●●

BunkeringNot Feasible – Cannot Be Improved

Production, storage
and distribution

Not Feasible – Can Be Improved

Current technology readiness level

TRL 9

Potential trajectory of technology
readiness

TRL 9Social acceptance●●

Supply chain resilience●●●

Security against malicious actions

●●●
●●●

●●●

●●●

●●●

Safety

●●●

●●●

●●●

●●●

Economic Feasibility

●●●

●●●

●●●

●●●

Regulatory

●●●

●●●

●●●

●●●

People

●●●

●●●

●●●

●●●

Engineering

Sustainability & Environmental

Engineering complexity (production,
installation, decommissioning)●●●

Complexity of retrofitting●●●

Availability●●●

Reliability●●●

Maintainability●●●

Logistics/supportability●●●

Quality standards●●●

12 Maritime Technologies ForumUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Solution:

Grey LNG [Fuel Pathway Code: LNG_f_SLP_gm]

Description: Standard LNG production, including liquefaction, and using grid mix electricity.
Evaluation:

No significant barriers, but mostly medium and high confidence across the board. Sustainability, safety,
regulatory, skills availability have medium confidence. Not many LNG vessels have reached end-of-life
to understand disposal aspects.

Very Feasible
Feasible – Can Be Further Improved

Well-to-wake●●Medium Confidence●

Low ConfidenceInsufficient Data

Technology

Greenhouse gas emission intensity

DisposalHigh Confidence

Onboard Storage and use●●●

BunkeringNot Feasible – Cannot Be Improved

Production, storage
and distribution

Not Feasible – Can Be Improved

84.9 gCO2eq/MJ(range 76-91 gCO2eq/MJ)

Current technology readiness level

TRL 9

Potential trajectory of technology
readiness

TRL 9Social acceptance●●

Supply chain resilience●●

Security against malicious actions

●●
●●

●●

●●

●●

Safety

●●

●●

●●

●●

Economic Feasibility

●●●

●●●

●●

●●

Regulatory

●●

●●

●●

●●

People

●●

●●

●●

●●

Engineering

Sustainability & Environmental

Engineering complexity (production,
installation, decommissioning)●●●

Complexity of retrofitting●●

Availability●●●

Reliability●●●

Maintainability●●●

Logistics/supportability●●●

Quality standards●●●

13 Maritime Technologies ForumUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Solution:

Fossil MGO & CCS [Fuel Pathway Code: MDO/MGO(VLSFO)_f_r_CP_gm]

Description: Fossil and recycled carbon co-processing in refinery using grid mix electricity. Scope includes both the fueland manufacture, installation etc. of carbon capture units, as well as the disposal and subsequentpermanent storage or utilization of the CO 2 . The assessment assumes a 50% to 90% capture rate (coming
to a 70% average) and a 20% to 40% increase in energy usage (coming to a 30% average).
Evaluation:

The limiting factor for the use of CCS is the regulatory maturity for both onboard storage and use, anddisposal. Further, the confidence levels are graded low for many of the sub-criteria when considering
onboard and disposal, however, it is recognized that the technology is relatively mature (particularly onland). It is anticipated that the TRL will move from 6 to 7 shortly with full scale pilot projects being undertaken.

Very Feasible
Feasible – Can Be Further Improved

High Confidence●●

Medium Confidence●

Low ConfidenceInsufficient Data

Technology

Greenhouse gas emission intensity

Bunkering●●●

Production, storage
and distribution

Not Feasible – Cannot Be Improved

DisposalOnboard Storage and use

Well-to-wake

Not Feasible – Can Be Improved

49.5 gCO2eq/MJ(range 31.9-64.4 gCO2eq/MJ)

Current technology readiness level

TRL 6

Potential trajectory of technology
readiness

TRL 8Social acceptance●

Supply chain resilience●●●

Security against malicious actions

●●●
●●

●●●

●●

●

Safety

●●●

●●●

●●

●

Economic Feasibility

●●●

●●●

●

●

Regulatory

●●●

●●●

●●

●●

People

●

●●●

●

●

Engineering

Sustainability & Environmental

Engineering complexity (production,
installation, decommissioning)●

Complexity of retrofitting●

Availability●

Reliability●

Maintainability●

Logistics/supportability●

Quality standards●

14 Maritime Technologies ForumUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Solution:

Liquified Bio-methane (LBG)[Fuel Pathway Code: LNG_b_AD_gm]

Description: Assumed to be based on organic waste and comply with sustainability criteria (e.g. RED, IMO LCA).
Evaluation:

Bio-methane would reduce the GHG emissions throughout the supply chain and onboard the vessel whencompared to LNG. In terms of technology and engineering, the use of bio-methane is very feasible, with ahigh level of confidence, based on the industry experience with using LNG. Its feasibility is further supportedby the use of existing LNG distribution, storage and bunkering facilities. Where confidence has been graded
low is in relation to supply chain resilience, accounting for the current limited fuel availability and competing
demands with other industries.

Very Feasible
Feasible – Can Be Further Improved

Well-to-wake

Not Feasible – Can Be Improved

Medium Confidence●

Low ConfidenceInsufficient Data

Technology

Greenhouse gas emission intensity

Disposal●●Onboard Storage
and useHigh Confidence

Bunkering●●●

Production, storage
and distribution

Not Feasible – Cannot Be Improved

31.5 gCO2eq/MJ(range 10-53 gCO2eq/MJ)

Current technology readiness level

TRL 9

Potential trajectory of technology
readiness

TRL 9Social acceptance●●

Supply chain resilience●

Security against malicious actions

●●
●●

●●●

●●

●●●

Safety

●●

●●

●●

●●

Economic Feasibility

●●●

●●

●●

●●

Regulatory

●●

●●

●●

●●

People

●●

●●

●●

●●

Engineering

Sustainability & Environmental

Engineering complexity (production,
installation, decommissioning)●●●

Complexity of retrofitting●●

Availability●●●

Reliability●●●

Maintainability●●●

Logistics/supportability●●●

Quality standards●●●

15 Maritime Technologies ForumUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Solution:

BioMethanol [Fuel Pathway Code: MeOH_b_G_MS_gm]

Description: Assumed to be based on waste and comply with sustainability criteria (e.g. RED, IMO LCA).
Evaluation:

Biomethanol would reduce the GHG emissions throughout the supply chain and onboard the vessel whencompared to fossil MGO. In terms of technology and engineering, the use of bio-methanol is feasible, witha medium level of confidence, or some cases lacking data, based on the limited industry experience withusing methanol. Where confidence has been graded low is in relation to supply chain resilience, accounting
for the current limited fuel availability and competing demands with other industries.

Very Feasible
Feasible – Can Be Further Improved

Well-to-wake●●Medium Confidence●

Low ConfidenceInsufficient Data

Technology

Greenhouse gas emission intensity

DisposalHigh Confidence

Onboard Storage and use●●●

BunkeringNot Feasible – Cannot Be Improved

Production, storage
and distribution

Not Feasible – Can Be Improved

14 gCO2eq/MJ(range 2-26 gCO2eq/MJ)

Current technology readiness level

TRL 8

Potential trajectory of technology
readiness

TRL 9Social acceptance●●

Supply chain resilience●

Security against malicious actions●●

Sustainability & Environmental

●●

●●

●●

●●

Safety

●●

●●

●●

●●

Economic Feasibility

●●

●●

●●

●●

Regulatory

●●

●●

●●

●●

People

●●

●●

●●

●●

Engineering complexity (production,
installation, decommissioning)●●

Engineering

Complexity of retrofitting
Availability●●

Reliability
Maintainability
Logistics/supportability●●

Quality standards●●

16 Maritime Technologies ForumUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Solution:

Green Synthetic Methanol [Fuel Pathway Code: MeOH_fCO2_rH2_MS_gm]

Description: Scope was limited to renewable electricity resources and excluded nuclear.
Evaluation:

Unsurprisingly, green synthetic methanol gradings are very similar to biomethanol except for economic
viability, specifically cost of production, storage and distribution. Synthetics can be done but doing so atscale needs improvement, and supply chain resilience is an issue.

Very Feasible
Feasible – Can Be Further Improved

Well-to-wake●●Medium Confidence●

Low ConfidenceInsufficient Data

28.5 gCO2eq/MJ(range 0-57 gCO2eq/MJ)

Greenhouse gas emission intensity

Technology

DisposalHigh Confidence

Onboard Storage and use●●●

BunkeringNot Feasible – Cannot Be Improved

Production, storage
and distribution

Not Feasible – Can Be Improved

Current technology readiness level

TRL 7

Potential trajectory of technology
readiness

TRL 8Social acceptance●●

Supply chain resilience●

Security against malicious actions

●●
●●

●●

●●

●●

Safety

●●

●●

●●

●●

Economic Feasibility

●

●●

●●

●●

Regulatory

●●

●●

●●

●●

People

●●

●●

●●

●●

Engineering

Sustainability & Environmental

Engineering complexity (production,
installation, decommissioning)●●

Complexity of retrofitting●

Availability●●

Reliability●

Maintainability●

Logistics/supportability●●

Quality standards●●

17 Maritime Technologies ForumUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Solution:

Green Ammonia [Fuel Pathway Code: NH3_rN2_rH2_HB_gm]

Description: Feedstock is produced from renewable electricity using the Haber Bosch synthesis process.
Evaluation:

Green ammonia is a key solution for achieving near-zero GHG emissions (WtW). There is limited marine
experience with using ammonia as fuel and machinery technology is under development (e.g. engine),
which is what drives the confidence levels to be low or insufficient on many of the criteria. While much
experience can be taken from onshore industries and the carriage of ammonia in liquified gas carriers there
remains challenges around safety and managing the risks associated with the toxicity.

Very Feasible
Feasible – Can Be Further Improved

Well-to-wake●●Medium Confidence●

Low ConfidenceInsufficient Data

27.5 gCO2eq/MJ(range 0-55 gCO2eq/MJ)

Greenhouse gas emission intensity

Technology

DisposalHigh Confidence

Onboard Storage and use●●●

BunkeringNot Feasible – Cannot Be Improved

Production, storage
and distribution

Not Feasible – Can Be Improved

Current technology readiness level

TRL 6

Potential trajectory of technology
readiness

TRL 8Social acceptance●

Supply chain resilience●

Security against malicious actions●●

Sustainability & Environmental

●●

●

●

Safety●●Economic Feasibility

●

●●

●●

●●

Regulatory

●●

●●

●●

●

People

●● ●

●●

●

●●

●●

Engineering complexity (production,
installation, decommissioning)

Engineering

Complexity of retrofitting
Availability
Reliability
Maintainability
Logistics/supportability
Quality standards

18 Maritime Technologies Forum●●●●UPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Solution:

Liquified Bio-methane (LBG)[Fuel Pathway Code: LNG_b_AD_gm]

Description: Assumed to be based on organic waste and comply with sustainability criteria (e.g. RED, IMO LCA).
Evaluation:

Bio-methane would reduce the GHG emissions throughout the supply chain and onboard the vessel whencompared to LNG. In terms of technology and engineering, the use of bio-methane is very feasible, with ahigh level of confidence, based on the industry experience with using LNG. Its feasibility is further supportedby the use of existing LNG distribution, storage and bunkering facilities. Where confidence has been graded
low is in relation to supply chain resilience, accounting for the current limited fuel availability and competing
demands with other industries.

Very Feasible
Feasible – Can Be Further Improved●●

Medium Confidence●

Low ConfidenceInsufficient Data

Technology

Greenhouse gas emission intensity

Onboard Storage and use

High Confidence

Bunkering●●●

Production, storage
and distribution

Not Feasible – Cannot Be Improved

Disposal

Well-to-wake

Not Feasible – Can Be Improved

37 gCO2eq/MJ(range 28-46 gCO2eq/MJ)

Current technology readiness level

TRL 7

Potential trajectory of technology
readiness

TRL 8Social acceptance●

Supply chain resilience●

Security against malicious actions

●●
●●

●

●

●

Safety

●

●

●

●●

Economic Feasibility

●●

●●

●

●●

Regulatory

●

●

●

●

People

●

●

●

●●

Engineering

Sustainability & Environmental

Engineering complexity (production,
installation, decommissioning)●

Complexity of retrofitting●

Availability●

Reliability●

Maintainability●

Logistics/supportability●

Quality standards●

19 Maritime Technologies ForumUPDATED FUELS EVALUATION THROUGH THE MTF FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Appendix 2 – MTF Framework Criteria
Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG)• Greenhouse gas emission intensity

Technology• Current technology readiness level• Expected technology readiness in 5 years• Social acceptance• Supply chain resilience• Security against malicious actions

Environmental Sustainability• Sustainability of production, storage and distribution• Sustainability of bunkering• Sustainability of onboard storage and use• Recyclability and sustainability of disposal

Safety• Safety during production, storage and distribution• Safety during bunkering• Safety during onboard storage and use• Safety during disposal

Economic Viability• Cost of production, storage and distribution• Cost of bunkering• Cost of onboard storage and use• Cost of disposal

Regulatory Maturity• Maturity of regulations related to production, storage and distribution• Maturity of regulations related to bunkering• Maturity of regulations related to onboard storage and use• Maturity of regulations related to disposal

Skills Availability• Skill base and competency within production, storage and distribution• Skill base and competency for bunkering• Skill base and competency onboard storage and use• Skill base and competency for disposal

Engineering• Engineering complexity (production, installation, decommissioning)• Complexity of retrofitting• Availability• Reliability• Maintainability• Logistics/supportability• Quality standards

20 Maritime Technologies Forum