REVISED FRAMEWORKFOR ASSESSINGDECARBONIZATIONTECHNOLOGIESAND ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY CARRIERSREVISED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Executive Summary
The MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers is a holistic framework
to assess technologies and energy carriers for acceptance into the maritime environment.
The Framework 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.
The evaluation according to the Framework is a collaborative exercise that assesses the feasibility of proposed
alternative fuels expected to drive the decarbonization of the maritime industry. The framework criteria work as achecklist, ensuring a systematic and standardized evaluation of technologies and energy carriers.
During the application of the Framework as reported in “Fuels evaluation through the MTF Framework for assessing
decarbonization technologies and alternative energy carriers” in November 2022, MTF identified several improvement
potentials. This report presents a revised Framework, improving the evaluation process, criteria and presentation of theevaluation. The revision is supported by a literature review of other frameworks and assessments. The revised Frameworkhas been further tested by validating that the list of criteria captures known issues.

Introduction
The MTF Framework for Assessing Decarbonization Technologies and Alternative Energy Carriers is a holistic framework
to assess technologies and energy carriers for acceptance into the maritime environment and long term use. While
greenhouse gas emissions reduction is the ,main reason new technologies and fuels need to be evaluated, we need toalso ensure we consider the impact of other social, economic and environmental factors when finding and applying
solutions.1
The purpose of the framework is to:• Provide a common view as to what criteria are important when assessing decarbonization technologies andalternative energy carriers• Facilitate understanding and communication on assessed technologies and energy carriers• As a result of the assessments, identify gaps where further regulations and standards are needed to remove barriers
The framework should, in general, be applicable for all decarbonization technologies and alternative low- andzero-carbon energy carriers.
The Framework 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.
The evaluation according to the Framework is a collaborative exercise that assesses the feasibility of proposed
alternative fuels expected to drive the decarbonization of the maritime industry. The framework criteria work asa checklist, ensuring a systematic and standardized evaluation of technologies and energy carriers.
During the application of the Framework as reported in “Fuels evaluation through the MTF Framework for assessing
decarbonization technologies and alternative energy carriers” in November 2022, MTF identified several potential
improvements. This report presents a revised Framework improving the evaluation process, criteria and presentationof the evaluation. The revision is supported by a literature review of other frameworks and assessments. The revised
Framework has been further tested by validating that the list of criteria captures known issues.

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

1
Framework for assessing decarbonization technologies and alternative energy carriers, Maritime Technologies Forum (MTF).
Available at https://www.maritimetechnologiesforum.com/documents/MTF-concept-paper.pdf

2 Maritime Technologies ForumREVISED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Review of Other Frameworks
In revising the MTF framework, a review of related frameworks within the marine industry has been undertaken.
This is to test that (1) the MTF framework is addressing the relevant aspects associated with decarbonization and (2)to identify any gaps in published material that can be addressed by the MTF Framework. Each framework, orassessment, reviewed as part of this task is briefly discussed and then summarized in Table 2.
MEPC.376(80) provides the ‘Guidelines on life cycle GHG intensity of marine fuels (LCA Guidelines)’ and the firstversion of IMO’s method to assess the well-to-wake GHG emissions and sustainability of marine fuels. An initial list of
101 fuel pathways is also included. 2
The Nordic Roadmap project has provided a life cycle assessment of potential zero-carbon fuels in the Nordic
context, addressing well-to-wake GHG emissions as well as other environmental impacts. 3
The Sustainable Shipping Initiative has outlined sustainability issues, principles and criteria developed according todifferent feedstocks and primary energy sources for zero and low carbon marine fuels.4
Ricardo and DNV’s Study on the readiness and availability of low- and zero-carbon ship technology and marine
fuels5 assesses the feasibility of achieving various decarbonization ambitions, and provides among other things, anassessment of technology and commercial readiness and costs of various technologies and fuels, as well as areview of well-to-wake emissions of candidate fuels.
Lloyd’s Register developed the zero-carbon fuel monitor6, with the most recent edition showing an average increase
in readiness across all fuels and supply chain stages from three perspectives: technology (TRL), investment (IRL) andcommunity (CRL). Three main categories of fuel have been assessed to date including re-electrofuels, natural gas
with carbon capture and sustainable biomass-derived fuels.

MEPC.376(80) ‘Guidelines on life cycle GHG intensity of marine fuels (LCA Guidelines), 7 July 2023.
Available at https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Environment/Documents/annex/MEPC%2080/Annex%2014.pdf

2Life 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/

3

Available at https://www.sustainableshipping.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Sustainability-criteria-of-marine-fuels-report.pdf
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

4

Zero Carbon Fuel Monitor, The Lloyd’s Register Maritime Decarbonisation Hub, July 2022 update.
Available at https://www.lr.org/en/marine-shipping/maritime-decarbonisation-hub/zcfm/

5

3 Maritime Technologies ForumREVISED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

It can be seen from Table 1 that the existing assessments focus on a specific set of criteria, for example technology orenvironment, and this is one area where the MTF Framework is proven to be more extensive in that it addresses all relevant
criteria. These other frameworks (or assessments) also allow for comparisons to be made in terms of the evaluation
outcomes of specific new technologies and energy carriers, thereby providing wider industry insight.
Table 1: Overview of other frameworks
Reference

Fuels/Technologies
Addressed

Criteria Considered

Lifecycle

Comment/
Observations

IMO LCA guidelines– MEPC.376(80)Fuel agnostic,
101 pathways

GHG reduction
strategy (the third outof 4 strategy ambitions,as relevant here):uptake of zero ornear-zero GHG
emission technologies,
fuels and/or energy
sources to represent atleast 5%, striving for
10%, of the energy
used by international
shipping by 2030

Well-to-wakecalculations
related to
production anduse of marine
fuels

None

The Nordic
Roadmap projectHydrogen,ammonia, andmethanol, as well as
methane, electricity
in batteries, marine
gas oil and liquefied
natural gas

Environmental impacts(e.g. ecotoxity, human
toxicity, acidification,
land use)

Well-to-wake

Nordic context

The Sustainable
Shipping Initiative

Any marine fuel– researchpresented
is not specificallyutilized for any
given fuel

15 sustainability issues
and criteria (e.g.
emissions, air quality,
water, food security,social)Well-to-wakeCriteria available
for useStudy on thereadiness andavailability oflow- andzero-carbon shiptechnology andmarine fuels

Biofuels, e-fuels,
blue fuels (hydrogenand ammonia),
electricity from thegrid and fossil fuels
blended withadvanced biofuels
and CCS

Technology (TRL) andCommercial (CRL)

Well-to-wakeFeasibility analysis
for meeting
decarbonisation
scenarios (modelled
as 50%, 80% and100% reduction by
2050

Zero-Carbon Fuel
Monitor, LR

Re-electrofuels,
natural gas withcarbon capture andsustainablebiomass-derived
fuelsTechnology (TRL),
Investment (IRL) andCommunity (CRL)

Well-to-wakeNote separate
report issued Sept-23‘The future of
Maritime Fuels’
presents fuelprojections anddemand/supply
analysis

Zero Carbon
Outlook, ABS

Hydrogen (spectrumof e- and blue fuels)and carbon (CCS)

Technology readiness,carbon economics,
scaling

Well-to-wakeNone

DNV Maritime
Forecast to 2050

Technologies
considered: solidoxide fuel cells,liquefied hydrogen,wind-assisted
propulsion, airlubrication systems,
onboard carbon
capture, andnuclear propulsion.

Not criteria based

Well-to-wake

Addresses
alternativetechnologies
beyond the fuelsconsidered in theother studies
identified.

4 Maritime Technologies Forum

Distribution andstorage
Bunkering
infrastructure

REVISED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Using the Framework – Evaluation Process
The evaluation of fuels and technologies against the framework criteria is done by a team of specialists. Feedback issought from all specialists evaluating the solutions under consideration. Based on this individual input, a workshop is
conducted to aggregate the results and come to a consensus in terms of grading each criterion. The evaluation is
performed using all criteria laid out in the framework. For each criterion, how well each solution meets the criterion, andthe level of confidence are assessed. During the evaluation, the specialists make reasonable assumptions to complete
the exercise. The opinions and options are based on their best judgement and expertise.
The process has been revised and clarified with regards to description of the scope of the solution, the evaluation
grading levels, and the priority.

Scope
A key issue during the evaluation was to determine the scope and boundaries of the solution. For example, would
onboard carbon capture, in combination with fossil MGO, also include aspects related to the delivery of the CO 2 andsubsequent storage. Only when the scope is understood and clear to both MTF members and readers, can a consistentand valuable evaluation take place.
The solution should be clearly defined and described, and the evaluation should consistently include all relevant aspects
from production, transport and storage, bunkering, onboard use and disposal. The scope is closely linked to GHG
emission performance, and the scope should also define the expected level of emissions – for example e-ammonia with
70% well-to-wake GHG emission reduction compared to fossil fuels.
The solution can either be a specific technology – for example molten salt reactors – or a more general solution – forexample onboard nuclear power – which can be achieved with several technologies. The scope should clearly define
the approach and in case of addressing multiple technologies, the resulting GHG emission level should be similar.

Evaluation of the criteria
The original framework used three levels to assess how well a fuel met a criterion; meets criterion, meets criterion but canbe improved, and fails to meet the criterion. The granularity for not meeting the criterion was considered insufficient as inmany cases, it was expected that the solution could be improved in the future to meet the criterion. As a consequence,a fourth grading has been added, distinguishing between those solutions which can be improved and those that cannot
be remedied.
For each criterion, the availability of data for evaluation and related epistemic uncertainty should be consideredespecially when assigning numerical scores which may be aggregated. A ‘Confidence level’ has been introduced todescribe how confident the experts are that the evaluation is correct. This may highlight, for example, that a certain
technology that appears economically unfeasible, may well be feasible once uncertainty is taken into account.
Some combinations of feasibility and confidence levels should be avoided. No feasibility assessment should be done
where there is no availability of data. Areas with low feasibility and/or a low confidence level should be presented withan explanation for the assessment.
The updated gradings for assessing whether a fuel or technology meets each criterion, and the confidence level are
shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Description of grading options for the feasibility and confidence level assessment.
Dimension

Feasibility
Assessment

Confidence
Level

Grading

DescriptionHigh

The solution fully meets the criterion.

MediumThe solution meets the criterion but can be upgraded further.

Low

The solution requires significant developments to achieve the criterion, but is expected to beable to meet it in the future

Not
Feasible

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

High

The data availability is high and there is robust evidence for the assessment.

MediumThere is data available and there is medium evidence for the assessment.

Low

The data availability is low and there is limited evidence for the assessment.

Insufficient
Data

Insufficient data means that no or limited data is available for evaluation against the criterion.
In this scenario, reasonable assumptions should be made to complete the assessment.

5 Maritime Technologies ForumREVISED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Priority factor
A priority factor was initially used to weight the evaluation of each sub-criterion. The original aim of the priority factor was
to bring the more important aspects to the fore. For example, reduction of GHG emissions could be considered more
important than the current technology status. However, this did not have the desired effect as it was difficult to convey
the priority to the reader. It also meant that the weighting would be determined by the framework, which may bedifferent to that of the reader. The priority factor has been removed. Instead, the evaluation should be given as is, without
any priority between sub-criteria. It is up to the reader to prioritize those aspects that are considered most important.

Review of the Criteria
The criteria have been reviewed on whether they are sufficiently clear and well-defined, overlapping with other criteria,
as well as a structure and consistency across categories. Several criteria have been merged, deleted or moved. The
explanations have been updated according to the changes or to make the text clearer. The methodology that werepreviously in a separate column have been merged with the explanation.
The well-to-wake GHG emission is the main goal for which the impact on other aspects is justified and is therefore now astandalone category. The GHG emission intensity should be provided as a numerical value, rather than using thefeasibility grading. The Technology category has been elevated to sit just below GHG emissions, as this includes key
high-level considerations of the solution across the supply chain. Security has been merged into one criterion and moved
to Technology along with Supply chain resilience and Social acceptance. The technology readiness levels should be
provided as a numerical value between 1 and 9.
The categories Environmental sustainability, Safety, Economic viability, Regulatory maturity and Skills availability are
divided into the same four parts of the supply chain: production, storage and distribution; bunkering; onboard storage
and use; and disposal.
The Engineering category relates only to the onboard technology and related interfaces such as shore power
connection and does not include the engineering aspects related to the production of fuels for example.
Many aspects may be covered under multiple criteria. For example, regulatory complexity on bunkering would be
included under the Regulatory category, but also potentially under Economic viability due to increased cost caused by
the complexity. Where there was deemed to be duplication an effort was made to either combine the criteria or clarify
the scope of the criteria to avoid overlap.

6 Maritime Technologies ForumREVISED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

In addition to the literature review, the MTF framework criteria was further tested to validate that they are sufficient tocapture current thoughts or concerns. Each team member of the working group separately provided their 5 key issues interms of employing a number of different fuels and technologies: fossil LNG, fossil MGO and CCS, liquefied bluehydrogen, green ammonia, green methanol, biomethanol and biomethane.
Each fuel/technology was subsequently discussed to test whether the framework would prompt or capture all of theissues identified. This exercise validated that the criteria were extensive, while also highlighting some areas that required
additional clarification within the criteria descriptions.
Table 3 lists the revised categories, while Table 4 lists the revised criteria and includes a note on the main change andrationale. In addition, editorial changes to the text have been completed, however, these are not explicitly noted.
Table 3: Revised categories
Category

Description

Greenhouse Gas
Emission (GHG)

This is the main goal of applying the technology or energy carriers. The GHG emission isdetermined based on the solution as defined and described in the scope. All other criteria
are evaluated based on this definition, assuming that the GHG emission criteria is met.

Technology

This is the general technology readiness and acceptance including all technologies acrossthe supply chain. The technology readiness level is assessed based on today’s status and the
expected level in five years. In addition, this category include assessment on the social
acceptance, resilience and security level.

Environmental
Sustainability

This is the ecological and social impact (externalities). This includes topics such as toxicity,
resource use (land, minerals, etc), water use or pollution (air/water etc), labour aspects suchas welfare, health and equality and equity (in international aspects), etc. GHG emissions from
CO2, CH4 and N2O are not included as they are covered in a separate category.

SafetyThis relates to the level of safety achieved, or can be achieved. This should also reflect thelevel of safety when scaling up from a single vessel to fleet-wide application.

Economic Viability

This relates to the cost of bringing the technology or energy carrier into service. The costs
should also reflect the complexity when scaling up the use. Aspects related to availability ofenergy should be covered under Supply chain resilience.

Regulatory Maturity

This is the availability, maturity and complexity of implementing regulations. This includes
consideration to the cost associated with that complexity, and compatibility between
regulations and standards both across nations and within nations. This should be consideredseparate from maturity of a technology - e.g. where a electricity grid can be mature, but thestandards for connections differ between countries. The confidence level should reflect theuncertainty that the regulation will become available in the future.

Skills Availability

This is the level of change that would be required, regarding the skill base and competency,
in order to accept the new technology or energy carrier into service.

Engineering

This is the engineering aspects related to bringing the onboard technology or energy carrier
into service. It also includes related interface technologies.

7 Maritime Technologies ForumREVISED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Table 4: Updates to the criteria
Category

Criterion

Explanation

Note on Changes and Rationale

Greenhousegas emission

Greenhouse gas
emission
intensity

This is the well-to-wake GHG emission,
measured in gCO2eq/MJ, from theproduction, storage & distribution, use
and disposal of the technology and/or
energy carrier. It can be measured
using ISO14040 on lifecycle assessment,
the IMO LCA guidelines or the FuelEU
maritime method.

The GHG emission intensity should
be provided as a numerical value
and determined based on the fueland technology solution anddescribed in the scope.

Technology

Currenttechnology
readiness level

This is the technology readiness level(TRL 1 to 9) at the time of assessment.
The assessment should be based on thelowest TRL of all technologies across the
supply chain.

The TRL should be a numericalvalue and specified to be based on
the technology with the lowest TRL
across the supply chain.

Technology

Expected
technology
readiness levelin five years

This is the expected technology
readiness level (TRL 1 to 9) five years
from now on. This contributes to theassessment by informing of whentechnology may be available. The
assessment should be based on thelowest TRL of all technologies across the
supply chain.

The time horizon is specified to five
years.

Technology

SocialacceptanceThis concerns the social acceptance ofthe technology or energy carrier inquestion, both in the industry and in thegeneral public. It also includes whether
is it aligned with other sectors in drive todecarbonisation, or misaligned.

This criterion is moved from People
as it reflects the general
acceptance of the technology
both in the public and in theindustry.

Technology

Supply chain
resilience

This relates to resilience within the system(including within its supply chain andvalue chain) in relation to shocks anddisruptions which can happen e.g. inthe market, ecologically, as well as
limitation due to availability andcompetition with other industries e.g. forfuel feedstock.

This criterion has been moved
from the sustainability andenvironmental group as it relates tothe high-level resilience of thetechnology and considered lessrelated to sustainability andenvironmental. Aspects related
to availability which was a separate
criterion under Economic Feasibility
have been included here.

Technology
Readiness

Security against
malicious
actions

This relates to resilience within the system(including within its supply chain andvalue chain) in relation to shocks anddisruptions which can happen e.g. inthe market, ecologically, as well as
limitation due to availability andcompetition with other industries e.g.
for fuel feedstock.

This criterion has been moved fromthe sustainability andenvironmental group as it relates tothe high-level resilience of thetechnology and considered lessrelated to sustainability andenvironmental. Aspects related toavailability which was a separate
criterion under Economic Feasibility
have been included here.

Environmental
sustainability

Sustainability of
production,
storage anddistribution

This is the ecological and social impact(externalities), arising as a result of
production, storage and distribution
scenarios.

Production, storage and distribution
are combined into one criterion.

Environmental
sustainability

Sustainability of
bunkeringThis is the ecological and social impact(externalities) arising as a result of
bunkering scenarios, considering
shore-to-ship and ship-to-ship
bunkering.

Environmental
sustainability

Sustainabilityof onboard
storage and use

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

8 Maritime Technologies Forum

To be consistent with other criteria
the scope is specified to onboard
storage and use.

REVISED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Category

Criterion

Explanation

Environmental
Sustainability

Recyclability
andsustainabilityof disposal

This is the ecological and social impact(externalities) arising as a result of disposal
scenarios.

SafetySafety during
production,
storage anddistribution

This considers the level of safety achieved,
and achievable, during production,
storage and distribution.

SafetySafety during
bunkeringThis considers the level of safety achieved,
and achievable, during bunkering,
including all modes of bunkering.

SafetySafety during
onboardstorage anduseThis considers the level of safety achieved
during onboard storage and use (on thevessel). This includes all onboard use
scenarios (underway, at anchor, in port,
dry dock, etc), and includes operation andmaintenance.

SafetySafety during
disposalThis considers the level of safety achieved,
and achievable, during disposal.

Economic
Viability

Cost ofproduction,
storage anddistribution

This relates to the cost of production,
storage and distribution on land, and in
total to the fuel cost.

The criterion has been
restructured to align with thecriteria of other categories.

Economic
Viability

Cost ofbunkeringThis relates to the cost of bunkering.

The criterion has been added toalign with the criteria of othercategories.

Economic
Viability

Cost ofonboardstorage anduseThis relates to the cost of technologies
installed on onboard for new construction
projects, including energy storage andconverters. The cost of the fuel or energy
carrier is not included as this is covered bycost of production.

Direct and indirect costs are
combined into one criterion
covering all onboard cost toalign with the other categories.
A clarification is added that thefuel cost is covered under cost of
production.

This includes the recyclability and waste
aspects within production, when in service(via operation and maintenance), and to
the end of life disposal.

It also includes indirect costs, including lost
opportunity costs. Examples could bedecreased range due to volumetric energy
density and gravimetric energy density
causing increased bunkering interval.; or
location of storage tanks affecting cargo
carrying ability.
Economic
Viability

Cost ofdisposalThis relates to the cost of disposal oftechnologies and any waste or byproducts.

Regulatory
Maturity

Maturity of
regulations
related to
production,
storage anddistribution

This is the maturity and complexity of
regulations relating to production, storage
and distribution.

Regulatory
Maturity

Maturity of
regulations
related tobunkeringThis is the maturity and complexity of
regulations relating to bunkering

9 Maritime Technologies Forum

Note on Changes and Rationale

Production, storage anddistribution are combined into
one criterion.

Onboard storage and use are
combined into one criterion.

REVISED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Category

Criterion

Explanation

Regulatory
Maturity

Maturity of
regulations related
to onboard
storage and use

This is maturity and complexity of
regulations relating to onboard
storage and use.

Regulatory
Maturity

Maturity of
regulations related
to disposal

This is maturity and complexity of
regulations relating to disposal.

SkillsAvailability

Skill base andcompetency for
production,
storage anddistribution

This is the level of change that would
be required, regarding the skill baseand competency within production,
distribution and storage industry.

SkillsAvailability

Skill base andcompetency forbunkeringThis is to the level of change thatwould be required, regarding thecertification & training for maritime
industry personnel, including theavailability across geographies.

SkillsAvailability

Skill base andcompetency
onboard storage
and useThis is to the level of change thatwould be required, regarding thecertification & training for maritime
industry personnel, including theavailability across geographies.

SkillsAvailability

Skill base andcompetency fordisposalThis is the level of change that would
be required, regarding the skill baseand competency within the disposal
industry.

Engineering

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

Engineering

Complexity ofretrofittingThis is the complexity of applying this inretrofit scenarios where existing safety
arrangements could be unsuitable
and the design is limited by space
available (e.g. larger tank volumes are
required for fuels with lower energy
density, locating a contained fuelpreparation space, accounting forlarger piping, especially doublewalled piping, may require pipes tobe rerouted.

This criterion is moved from
economic feasibility as it relates tothe engineering aspects onboard.

Engineering

Availability

Availability is the measure of an item/
system’s readiness for use (see IEC
60050-191). It is a function of thereliability and maintainability
attributes of the system/item, and thelevel and effectiveness of the support
arrangements in place. Preventative
maintenance may be considered, aspart of the availability calculation.For
an item which is operating
continuously, availability can becalculated as A = Uptime / (uptime+downtime).

The method description is
integrated in the explanation.

10 Maritime Technologies Forum

Note on Changes and Rationale

The name is changed to include
the skill base and competency
onboard in general, and not limited
to certification and training. The
explanation also specifies that isshould include geographic
availability of people in themaritime industry.

REVISED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Category

Criterion

Explanation

Engineering

Reliability

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

Engineering

Maintainability

Maintainability relates to the difficultyof repairing things once they have aproblem. Therefore, it does not include
preventative maintenance, but does
incorporate the notion of corrective
maintenance.

Engineering

Logistics/
Supportability

This looks at the aspects required inorder to support the item, including
their complexity.

Note on Changes and Rationale

For example, how simple 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 required locations and how
complex that is (what is required toachieve it). But, more relating to the
support supply chain, rather thaninitial production of the item.
It can also include aspects such as
consideration to connections for data
for maintenance etc, diagnostics andcalibration, etc.
Engineering

Quality standards

11 Maritime Technologies Forum

This concerns safety aspects as aresult of quality, as well ascompatibility (internationally) as aresult of quality, etc. This can apply fortechnologies and also energy carriers.
E.g. when bunkering biofuel it needs
to be according to a quality standard
for engine compatibility and avoid
corrosion, degradation.

The explanation is expanded withan example.

REVISED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Table 5 lists criteria that have been deleted, noting the rationale and where the relevant aspects should be included.
The list does not include criteria which have been combined or split due to align along the stages in supply chain acrossthe categories.
Table 5: Deleted Criteria
Category

Criterion

Explanation

Note on Changes and Rationale

SafetyAggregated safety
considerations

The level of safety may be affected by
the environment outside the vessel
itself. This considers the level of safety
achieved, and achievable, 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 deleted as these
aspects are intended to be
captured in the other criteria under
Safety.

This criterion is more relevant to energy
carriers, and less so to technology.
Facets such as how energy carriers
are stored and transported in theaggregated quantities, they need to
be in are relevant in the overall safety
consideration.
Economic
Feasibility

Technical
complexity of
distribution

This is how technically complex it willbe, to achieve distribution, in thequantities required.

This criterion is deleted as thecomplexity is captured underTechnology Status, and any costs
related to it should be captured
under the other sub-criteria.

Economic
Feasibility

Availability(quantity)

This is the availability, in terms ofquantity. Depending on thetechnology or energy carrier,availability could be limited due toavailability of an element within it.
Cost to scale up availability would be
included.

The criterion is deleted, andrelevant elements are moved to
Resilience under Technology Status.

Engineering

Interoperability

This concerns the interoperability
surrounding the technology or energy
carrier. For example, shore power
connection compatibility, and fuelquality across countries.

This criterion is deleted as it iscovered by compatibility of
regulations and standards. The
technology development related
to interoperability is closelyinterlinked development andavailability of standards.

Presentation of Evaluation Results
Presenting the evaluation of a single technology or energy carrier, and a comparison across multiple solutions arechallenging as the categories and criteria cover a wide range of aspects, and the feasibility of two criteria may not becomparable as they carry different weight for different users. The priority of the criteria has been removed and it is up to
the user to consider which items are more important. Consequently, the presentation of the results should facilitate that.
The evaluation of a single solution should start with a short and clear description of the scope of the technology anddefining the expected well-to-wake GHG emissions. This is the starting point, and sets the boundaries for the remaining
evaluation.
This definition of scope and boundaries should be followed by a compact visual summary of the feasibility andconfidence levels. Numerical aggregation of the evaluations can be misleading and should be avoided. The aim should
be to highlight areas with low feasibility and/or low confidence or lack of data. This includes where in the supply chain(e.g during bunkering or onboard use), and in which category (e.g. sustainability or safety). The supply chain stages havebeen aligned for all categories, except for GHG emissions and Technology Status, which are general across the supply
chain, and for Engineering which focuses on the onboard technology and related interfaces.
The evaluation should conclude with a concise summary with reflections on the main findings, including the criteria withlow feasibility and/or low confidence or lack of data. The complete assessment and any comments to each criteria
evaluation should be included in an Appendix.

12 Maritime Technologies ForumREVISED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Several solutions can be compared side by side per criteria. Again, comparisons based on numerical aggregation ofseveral criteria should be avoided, and the aim should be to highlight categories or criteria with low feasibility and/or low
confidence or lack of data.
The following includes proposals for how the results can be visualized.

Sample Evaluation of a Solution
Solution: Short name of the solution.
Description: One paragraph defining the technology(s) and supply chain, and the boundaries of the evaluation.
Evaluation: The below provides an example of how the feasibility assessment and related confidence level can bevisualized for a single solution. This is inspired by how IPCC conveys similar information GHG emissions and technology
readiness levels can also be provided as numerical values. The feasibility is indicated by colors, using blue colors in thisexample as specified in the legend, although a color scale of red to green may also be used for instance to highlightareas with low to high feasibility. The confidence level is indicated by dots, or ‘No data’. A variation of this would be to
only indicate where there is no data or low confidence.

Very Feasible
Feasible – Can Be Fruther Improved
Not Feasible – Can Be Improved
Not Feasible – Can Not Be Improved••• High Confidence•• Medium Confidence• Low Confidence
No Data Insufficient Data7

See e.g. IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report, Figure SPM.7a: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-7/

13 Maritime Technologies ForumREVISED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

The criteria where no data are available or graded to low feasibility and/or low confidence should be specifically listedwith comments on the evaluation.
Comment
Technology

Current technology readiness level–

Technology

Expected technology readiness level in five years–

Technology

Security against malicious actions–

Regulatory Maturity

Maturity of regulations related to production, storage and distribution–

Engineering

Engineering complexity (production, installation, decommissioning)–

Engineering

Logistics/supportability–

The below shows how a comparison between several solutions can be visualized. The first chart shows the number ofcriteria which are not considered feasible and/or where no data is available or assessed at low confidence. The second
is a table using the same visualization per criteria as in the single solution example.

Sample Summary Chart

14 Maritime Technologies ForumREVISED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Sample Summary Chart

15 Maritime Technologies ForumREVISED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DECARBONIZATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CARRIERS – MARCH 2024

Recommendation on Future WorkMTF has revised the evaluation Framework making it fit for purpose to address a wide range of solutions for
decarbonization. The Framework presented in this report may need future revisions.
The existing evaluations based on the previous Framework are suggested to be revisited in light of the restructured
criteria and the added granularity of the grading. It should not require a complete rework but can be built on theprevious evaluation.
Further solutions should be evaluated, and existing evaluations should be regularly reviewed taking into account new
developments.
Areas with low feasibility and/or no data or low confidence should be specifically addressed to improve the assessment
and performance.

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

Name

Contact

ABS

Joshua Padeti

jpadeti@eagle.org

DNV

Tore Longva (Project Manager)

tore.longva@dnv.com

Georgios Kasimatis

georgios.kasimatis@dnv.com

LRLouise Wrightlouisehelen.wright@lr.org

MCA

John Boothjohn.booth@mcga.gov.uk

NMA

Bjørn Mikkel Ryghbmry@sdir.no

16 Maritime Technologies Forum