FRAMEWORKFOR ASSESSINGDECARBONIZATIONTECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY CARRIERSMaritime Technologies Forum (MTF)

ABOUT MTF
The Maritime Technologies Forum (MTF) is a forum of Flag States and Classification
Societies.1 It has been established to provide technical and regulatory expertise tobenefit the maritime industry. The role of the Forum is to work together on researchwhich it will publish to the maritime industry and draw on regulatory expertise to beable to offer unbiased advice to the shipping sector. It will seek to give guidanceon the use of alternative fuels and increased levels of automation in the industry.
Furthermore, it will allow for the safe testing and adoption of new technologies
and it will help shape world-leading regulation.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Initial IMO GHG Strategy2 sets a clear vision forinternational shipping to reduce and phase out GHG
emission as soon as possible within this century. This vision
is supported by ambitions for GHG emissions and carbon

1.1 Purpose and scope
The purpose of the framework is to:•Provide a shared agreement as to what criteria

intensity in 2030 and 2050, stating that “technologicalare important when assessing decarbonization

innovation and the global introduction of alternative fuels

technologies and alternative energy carriers

and/or energy sources for international shipping will be
integral to achieve the overall ambition”
The MTF recognizes that the most pressing challenge forthe shipping sector is to improve its energy efficiency andto reduce carbon intensity which requires the use ofalternative energy carriers and new prime movertechnologies. This will also require a change in otheron-board technologies and supporting infrastructure thatthe new technologies will require. Whilst greenhouse gas•

Facilitate understanding and communication
on such technologies and energy carriers4•

As a result of the assessments, identify gaps
where further regulations and standards areneeded to remove barriers

The framework should, in general, be applicable forall decarbonization technologies and alternative
low- and zero-carbon energy carriers.

emissions reduction is the main purpose of this change,
we need to ensure we consider the impact of other social,economic and environmental factors when finding andapplying the solutions.
Therefore, the framework has been created in order topromote a holistic and considered assessment oftechnologies and energy carriers to be accepted into themaritime environment, which are suitable for long term use
in the marine environment without detriment to the planet
and the people living on it, in line with the premises of theUnited Nations Sustainable Development Goals.3

https://www.maritimetechnologiesforum.com/
IMO Resolution MEPC.304(72): Initial IMO Strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships
3
https://sdgs.un.org/goals
4
ISO 13600:1997 (withdrawn) defines energy carriers as “Substance or phenomenon that can be used to produce mechanical work or heat or to operate chemical orphysical processes”. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group III states that “Energy carriers include electricity and heat as well as solid, liquid and gaseous fuels”.
122

1.2 Key benefits

1.3 Current status of framework and work ahead

The key benefits of the framework are:

The framework is intended to be developed further•

It considers all areas of criteria relevant in orderto achieve sustainable outcomes from theintroduction of decarbonization technologies andenergy carriers: technology status, sustainability,
safety, security, regulations, people, engineeringand economic feasibility.

•over time, following feedback from maritime actors*.
The initial promotion of the framework, included within
this paper, promotes only the set of criteria, the highlevel explanation of them, and an initial proposal fromthe Forum on the priority. MTF will consider a methodology
specific to each criterion and its minimum thresholds
in the future.

The extensive criteria in the framework ensures thatimportant systemic aspects will be duly consideredrather than omitted.

•It can be used for a singular assessment, or forcomparison between multiple technologies orenergy carriers.

•Assessments can be carried out in a repeatable
and consistent way.

•A full system can be assessed using it, or just asub-system, notwithstanding that not all criteria
apply in all cases, particularly when using it forassessing an energy carrier versus a technology.

2. METHOD
At the time of writing, there are many assessments being

There is ongoing work on establishing frameworks andcarried out on decarbonization technologies and energy

criteria for evaluating such new solutions. Examples are thecarriers, by different actors within the maritime industry andSustainable Shipping Initiative work on sustainability criteria

wider environment. A limitation of these assessments is thatfor marine fuels5, and the Global Industry Alliance tothey do not duly consider the wider sustainability aspects,

Support Low Carbon Shipping workstream on alternativeand only focus on a small set of criteria. Often there arelow- and zero-carbon fuels6, as well as research work.

through life aspects of the technology or energy carrier
which are not considered.

In this framework, the MTF applies a Systems Engineering
approach bringing consideration of all relevant criteria, in

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals through its 19

a through life fashion, ensuring that this spans right throughgoals and more than 160 targets, link all the various aspects

from initial consideration to disposal. It encourages

that need to be considered in a sustainability perspective,

sustainable decarbonization, and provides an enduring

including biosphere, societal and economic factors.

framework that may be used more widely throughout theThe SDGs, however, do not provide a framework

maritime industry beyond the current main focus area offor evaluating new technologies and energy carriers.

GHG emision reduction.

*Members have the right to reserve themselves from positions in MTF publications that may be contrary to Members’ own policies
5
https://www.sustainableshipping.org/our-work/current-work/sustainability-criteria-for-marine-fuels/
6
https://greenvoyage2050.imo.org/gia-workstreams/

3

The International Council on Systems Engineering

In making an assessment there will always be trade-off

describes Systems Engineering as:

between one attribute to another. The prioritisation is“Systems Engineering is atransdisciplinary and integrative
approach to enable the successful
realization, use, and retirement ofengineered systems, using systems
principles and concepts, andscientific, technological, andmanagement methods”.7

needed to determine which attribute is more importantwhen using the framework to assess decarbonization
technologies and energy carriers. Each criterion has initiallybeen prioritised (higher, medium or lower) with respect towhat is important from a decarbonization perspective.
If the priority of an attribute is set to ‘higher’ it cannot be
traded-off and the minimum threshold must be met;
‘medium’ and ‘lower’ priority can be traded-off if it conflicts
with an attribute of a higher priority (for example economicfeasibility). If the framework were to be used postdecarbonisation or on another challenge, the prioritisation
may change.

3. FRAMEWORKCRITERIA(HIGH LEVEL)SUBCRITERIA

EXPLANATION /ADDITIONAL NOTESPRIORITY(HIGHER, MEDIUM,LOWER)

DRAFT: MIN.
THRESHOLD(ACCEPTANCELEVEL)SUSTAINABILITY & ENVIRONMENTAL

Sustainability &Environmental

Greenhousegas emission

Well to wakegreenhouse gasemissions from theproduction, storage& distribution, use
and disposal of thetechnology and/orenergy carrier.

HIGHER

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

Sustainability &Environmental

7

Ecological andsocial impact(externalities) in
production
scenarios

There may be subsets
within this such as
toxicity, and resourceuse (land, minerals,etc), water use or
pollution (air/wateretc), labour aspects
such as welfare, healthand equality + equity(in internationalaspects), etc.

HIGHER

https://www.incose.org/about-systems-engineering/system-and-se-definition/systems-engineering-definition

4

DRAFT:METHODOLOGYFOR THEMEASUREMENTCRITERIA(HIGH LEVEL)SUBCRITERIA

EXPLANATION /ADDITIONAL NOTESPRIORITY(HIGHER, MEDIUM,LOWER)

DRAFT: MIN.
THRESHOLD(ACCEPTANCELEVEL)SUSTAINABILITY & ENVIRONMENTAL

Ecological andsocial impact(externalities)
in storage &distribution
scenarios

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

HIGHER

Sustainability &Environmental

Ecological andsocial impact(externalities) inbunkering scenarios

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

HIGHER

Sustainability &Environmental

Ecological andsocial impact(externalities)
in onboard
use scenarios

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

HIGHERRecyclability
and disposal

This is the recyclability
and waste aspects,
within production
scenario, when inservice (via operationand maintenance),
and also when it
comes to end of life,
relating to the energy
carrier or technology.
Includes all impacts
from disposal, at endof system life.

HIGHER

Resilience to shocks
and disruptions (inmarket, ecological,etc; not physical)

This relates toresilience within thesystem (includingwithin its supply chainand value chain) inrelation to shocks anddisruptions which canhappen in the market,
ecologically, etc.

MEDIUM

Sustainability &Environmental

Sustainability &Environmental

Sustainability &Environmental

5

DRAFT:METHODOLOGYFOR THEMEASUREMENTCRITERIA(HIGH LEVEL)SUBCRITERIA

EXPLANATION /ADDITIONAL NOTESPRIORITY(HIGHER, MEDIUM,LOWER)SAFETY
Safety during
production

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

HIGHER

SafetySafety during
land distribution

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

HIGHER

SafetySafety during
land storage

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

HIGHER

Safety during
bunkeringThis considers thelevel of safety
achieved, andachievable, during
bunkering, including
all modesof bunkering.

HIGHER

Safety during
onboard storage

This considers thelevel of safetyachieved, andachievable, during
onboard storage(on the vessel).

HIGHER

Safety during
onboard usage

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

HIGHER

Aggregated safety
considerations

The level of safety
may be affectedby the environment
outside the vessel itself.
This considers the levelof safety achieved,and achievable, when
you go beyond one
singular vessel, suchas when you look atmultiple vessels in thesame location (e.g.
port, anchorage, etc).

HIGHER

Safety during
disposalThis considers thelevel of safety
achieved, andachievable,
during disposal.

HIGHER

SafetySafetySafetySafetySafetySafety6

DRAFT: MIN.
THRESHOLD(ACCEPTANCELEVEL)DRAFT:METHODOLOGYFOR THEMEASUREMENTCRITERIA(HIGH LEVEL)SUBCRITERIA

EXPLANATION /ADDITIONAL NOTESPRIORITY(HIGHER, MEDIUM,LOWER)TECHNOLOGY STATUS

Technology Status

Technology Status

Current technology
readiness

This is the technology
readiness level at thetime of assessment.

LOWERPotential trajectoryof technology
readiness

This is the expectedchange of technology
readiness level overtime, in order that
this contributes tothe assessment byinforming of whentechnology may
be available.

MEDIUM

SECURITY
Security during
production

This considers thelevel of security
required, andachievable,during production.

MEDIUM

Security

Security during
land storage

This considers thelevel of security
required, andachievable, during
land storage.

MEDIUM

Security

Security during
land distribution

This considers thelevel of security
required, andachievable, during
land distribution.

MEDIUM

Security duringbunkering

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

MEDIUM

Security

Security during
onboard usage

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), and includes
operation andmaintenance.

MEDIUM

Security

Security during
disposalThis considers thelevel of security
required, andachievable,during disposal.

MEDIUM

Security

Security

7

DRAFT: MIN.
THRESHOLD(ACCEPTANCELEVEL)DRAFT:METHODOLOGYFOR THEMEASUREMENTCRITERIA(HIGH LEVEL)SUBCRITERIA

EXPLANATION /ADDITIONAL NOTESPRIORITY(HIGHER, MEDIUM,LOWER)ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY

Economic Feasibility

Cost of storage (onland)This relates to the costof storage on land.

HIGHER

Economic Feasibility

Cost of storage(onboard)

This relates to the costof storage on onboard.

HIGHER

Economic Feasibility

Cost of production

This relates to thecost of production.

HIGHER

Economic Feasibility

Cost of distribution

This relates to thecost of distribution.

HIGHER

Economic Feasibility

Technical complexityof distributionThis is how technicallycomplex it will be, toachieve distribution, inthe quantities required.

MEDIUM

Economic Feasibility

Complexity ofretrofittingThis is the complexityof applying this inretrofit scenarios.

LOWER

Impact on ship
operation

This is the impact of
the technology orenergy carrier on ship
operation. This will
differ with different shiptypes and uses. Belowa certain thresholdit will not be viable toprogress a technology/ energy carrier
because the negative
impact will be
too high.

MEDIUM

Availability(quantity)

This is the availability,in terms of quantityof supply. Dependingon the technology
or energy carrier,availability could
be limited due toavailability of anelement within it. Cost
to scale up availability
would be included.

HIGHER

Economic Feasibility

Economic Feasibility

8

DRAFT: MIN.
THRESHOLD(ACCEPTANCELEVEL)DRAFT:METHODOLOGYFOR THEMEASUREMENTCRITERIA(HIGH LEVEL)SUBCRITERIA

EXPLANATION /ADDITIONAL NOTESPRIORITY(HIGHER, MEDIUM,LOWER)REGULATORY

Regulatory

Complexity ofresulting regulation(onboard focus)

This is complexity of
the regulatory aspects
relating to onboard;the implementationof it, plus potential
cost of changes.

Regulatory

Regulatorycompatibilitybetween nations

This is the level ofcompatibility between
multiple nations whenit comes to regulation.

MEDIUM

Regulatory

Regulator interfaces(internal to singularnations)This is the look of thecomplexity of thelandscape with regard
to regulatory interfaces
between wherejurisdictions meet(jurisdictions internal
to one nation, rather
than compatibility/complexity ofregulation betweennations). For example,
where the ship toshore regulatoryinterface exists.

MEDIUM

Regulatory

Complexity ofproduction, storage
and distribution
regulations (onland)This is complexity of
the implementation of
the regulations relating
to production, storage
and distribution. Thisincludes consideration
to the cost associatedwith that complexity.

MEDIUM

MEDIUMPEOPLE

PeoplePeoplePeople9Skill base andcompetency
within production,
distribution andstorage industry

This is the level ofchange that would
be required, regarding
the skill base andcompetency within
production, distribution
and storage industry, inorder to accept the newtechnology or energy
carrier into service.

MEDIUM

Certification &Training within
maritime industry

This is to the level ofchange that would berequired, regarding thecertification & training
for maritime industry
personnel, in orderto accept the newtechnology or energy
carrier into service.

MEDIUM

Social acceptanceThis concerns thesocial acceptanceof the technology
or energy carrierin question. It also
includes whether it
is aligned with othersectors in the drive
to decarbonization,or misaligned.

MEDIUM

DRAFT: MIN.
THRESHOLD(ACCEPTANCELEVEL)DRAFT:METHODOLOGYFOR THEMEASUREMENTCRITERIA(HIGH LEVEL)SUBCRITERIA

EXPLANATION /ADDITIONAL NOTESPRIORITY(HIGHER, MEDIUM,LOWER)

ENGINEERING

Engineering

Engineering

EngineeringEngineering

Engineering

Engineering
complexity(production,installation,decommissioning)This is the engineering
complexity relating
to bringing thetechnology or energy
carrier into service.

LOWER

Availability

Availability is themeasure of an item/
system’s readinessfor use. It is a functionof the reliability
and maintainability
attributes of thesystem/item, and thelevel and effectivenessof the support
arrangements inplace. Preventative
maintenance may
be considered,as part of theavailability calculation.

MEDIUM

Reliability

Reliability relates toan item/system
working to its fullcapability (designcapability) when
it's required to.

MEDIUM

Maintainability

Maintainability relates
to the difficulty ofrepairing things once
they have a problem.
Therefore, it does notinclude preventative
maintenance, butdoes incorporate
the notion of corrective
maintenance.

LOWER

Logistics /supportability

This looks at theaspects required inorder to support theitem, including theircomplexity.
For example, howsimple is it to get
support (parts, labour,etc) when in many
worldwide locations,as well as constraints
around that (cost,time, complexity, etc).
This is - and affects- the supply chain,across all requiredlocations and how
complex that is (whatis required to achieveit). But, more relating
to the support supply
chain, rather thaninitial production ofthe item.
It can also include
aspects such as
consideration toconnections fordata for maintenanceetc, diagnostics
and calibration, etc.

10

MEDIUM

DRAFT: MIN.
THRESHOLD(ACCEPTANCELEVEL)DRAFT:METHODOLOGYFOR THEMEASUREMENTCRITERIA(HIGH LEVEL)SUBCRITERIA

EXPLANATION /ADDITIONAL NOTESPRIORITY(HIGHER, MEDIUM,LOWER)

ENGINEERING

Engineering

Engineering

11Interoperability

This concerns theinteroperabilitysurrounding thetechnology orenergy carrier.
For example, shore
power connection
compatibility,
fuel quality.

MEDIUM

Quality standards

This concerns safety
aspects as a resultof quality, as wellas compatibility(internationally) as
a result of quality, etc.
This can apply fortechnologies andalso energy carriers.

MEDIUM

DRAFT: MIN.
THRESHOLD(ACCEPTANCELEVEL)DRAFT:METHODOLOGYFOR THEMEASUREMENT