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

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

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

Methanol-fueled ships have lately captured vital consideration inside the maritime trade. 60 dual-fuel methanol ships are presently in operation and roughly 340 dual-fuel vessels are on order globally as of mid-2025, reflecting speedy and aggressive adoption amongst main delivery corporations, significantly container ship operators resembling Maersk, CMA CGM, COSCO, ONE, and Evergreen. These dual-fuel vessels characterize a strategic hedge by shipowners and operators towards future carbon pricing dangers and stricter emissions laws. Nevertheless, the excessive enthusiasm seen in vessel orders contrasts sharply with the sobering actuality of methanol gas provide.

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

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

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

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

Importantly, the continuing electrification of highway transport is projected to free substantial volumes of biofuels initially allotted to floor autos, enhancing future maritime availability and probably driving prices even decrease over time. Because the IEA reported final 12 months, we already manufacture about 100 million tons of biofuels, 70 million tons of it HVO and biodiesel, yearly, however we use it virtually solely in floor transportation right now. I’ve had the dialog with the leaders of the US biodiesel affiliation, and they’re wanting intently at maritime delivery as their subsequent development market.

That drop in nature contains bunkering amenities in ports. Blends of VLSFO and biodiesel/HVO can be found in some elements right now, with precisely the identical brief facet tanks and bunkering processes delivering the blends as an alternative of pure VLSFO. In contrast, methanol requires new tanks, new processes, and new pumping tools, or intensive modifications to current tools resulting from its rather more corrosive nature. Decrease capital and working prices for ports and ships make HVO/biodiesel a simple alternative in comparison with methanol of any provenance.

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

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

For bigger, ocean-going ships with prolonged vary necessities, full battery-electric propulsion stays impractical within the brief to medium time period resulting from battery dimension, weight, and price constraints. Nevertheless, hybrid propulsion programs that combine batteries with biodiesel or HVO engines characterize a strong interim resolution. In such hybrid configurations, onboard batteries cowl peak vitality calls for, handle variable hundreds effectively, and supply vital operational financial savings by way of optimized engine effectivity. Such hybrid programs lengthen battery benefits—excessive effectivity, diminished emissions, and noise discount—to longer-distance vessels, facilitating regulatory compliance and decreasing general lifecycle working prices.

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

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

A complete comparability of fuels should consider each vitality densities and engine efficiencies. Adjusting for these crucial components clearly reveals battery electrical because the lowest working price different to VLSFO with biodiesel and HVO as probably the most economically sensible options among the many renewable liquid fuels. This calculation right now was available to be accomplished years in the past once I first did it, and the delivery trade isn’t a charity. Decarbonized ships will function on what is reasonable, obtainable and low-carbon, and that’s not methanol.

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

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

Ammonia is a superb fertilizer, and utilizing it that manner maximizes crop yields which may then be used for biofuels. Utilizing a ton of ammonia to develop crops relatively than burning it yields roughly forty-times extra usable gas vitality (and round thirty instances the mass of liquid gas). Low-carbon ammonia can be costly ammonia and it might’t be produced from biomass, so it is going to be in the identical value vary as e-methanol, far out of the operating.

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

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

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