Shipowners’ Choices of Alternative Marine Fuels: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Shun Chen
,
Xingjian Wang
,
Shiyuan Zheng
,
Yuantao Chen

It is interesting to find that alternative fuels (e.g., liquefied natural gas) are the most attractive choice for gas ships and ro-ro carriers; others prefer to use conventional fuels. Furthermore, shipowners’ choices of new fuels significantly correlate with their nationality is revealed. While it is well-established that economic factors influence shipowners’ choices for new ship fuel solutions, the impacts of bunker costs, freight rates, and CO2 emission allowance prices remain relatively limited. It is evident that the policies of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to reduce carbon emissions have increased the demand for building new energy ships. 

  • alternative fuels
  • multinomial logit model
  • orderbook
  • new vessels

1. Introduction

International shipping, responsible for moving over 90% of globally traded goods, plays a pivotal role in the world economy. Currently, it contributes about 2–3% of global emissions, a figure projected to rise to 17% by 2050 [1]. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has set crucial milestones for the industry, targeting a minimum 40% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030 and 70% by 2050, compared to 2008 levels. Additionally, a 50% reduction in total annual greenhouse gas emissions from shipping by 2050 is aimed, all underpinned by the adoption of low-carbon fuels to accommodate the sector’s growth [2].
The maritime sector’s intricate nature, characterized by high capital requirements, risks, and specialization, makes ordering new vessels a complex decision. Shipowners must assess market conditions before investment, considering shipbuilding capacity, compliance with conventions, and market competitiveness. Adhering to new emissions standards, however, necessitates significant adjustments that could cost the container shipping industry up to USD 10 billion [3], exerting a substantial influence on shipping companies’ revenue. Approximately 47% of voyage costs in the maritime sector are attributed to bunker costs, contingent upon fuel prices and vessel specifications [4].
Given the shipping sector’s magnitude and reliance on fuel expenditures, even incremental energy efficiency improvements can yield significant outcomes [5]. To align with IMO goals, ships need to transition to low-carbon alternative fuels like liquefied natural gas (LNG), methanol, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and biofuels, with future adoption of even more environmentally friendly options like hydrogen and ammonia anticipated [6]. While existing research mainly focuses on emissions and fuel performance, a gap exists between academic findings on alternative fuels and shipowners’ practical responses to changing regulations. Meeting the IMO’s 2050 carbon intensity targets prompts shipowners to assess when and whether to invest in vessels powered by alternative fuels.

2. Review of Alternative Marine Fuels and Shipowners’ Choices

The urgent need for maritime decarbonization has motivated shipowners to adopt various emission abatement solutions, including improving energy efficiency, slow steaming, using innovative power plants, and renewable fuels [7][8][9][10][11][12]. For newbuilding vessels, adopting alternative fuels could be one of the most important solutions, especially when considering the more stringent carbon emission regulations set to be stipulated by the IMO in the future. Thus, research into alternative marine fuels has gained extensive attention. Previous research has heavily focused on LNG, with growing interest in methanol, ammonia, and hydrogen due to their potential to lower or have zero net carbon emissions [13][14]. LNG served as an interim solution [15][16], while e-fuel, methanol and ammonia will be the source of future fuels [14]. The competitiveness of methanol, compared with conventional fuels, depends mainly on ship productivity and the price difference between methanol and marine diesel oil (MDO) [17][18]. The marginal abatement costs and greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement potential of alternative marine fuels including methanol, ammonia, liquid hydrogen, LNG, LPG and bio-diesel for a newbuilding vessel depend on the cost of carbon capture and storage, electricity cost, and shipping route [19].
Key drivers behind shipowners’ decisions to invest in emission abatement solutions, including alternative marine fuels, have been investigated. Previous research has showed that financial factors, such as investment costs, operational costs, and government support and regulations, all have significant impacts on shipowner decisions [20][21][22]. Furthermore, freight rate index, ship type, and shipowner nationality are all highly correlated with shipowners’ emission abatement solutions [23]. Some authors have argued that for Norwegian shipowners, long-term profitability, company strategy, and financial and intellectual resources serve as significant factors affecting their adoption of alternative fuels [24]. IMO policies have accelerated shipping decarbonization, but some measures still remain uncertain and discrepancies exist between the IMO’s incentives and industry perspectives [25]. Practicality and short-term returns matter in shipowners’ preferences for emission abatement solutions. When fuel oil prices are relatively high, regulations can stimulate shipowners to complete the fuel transition in a more aggressive direction [26].

3. Review on Multinomial Logit Model

The well-established multinomial logit model serves as a valuable tool for estimating choice probabilities and discerning influential factors. It has been applied in various contexts to shed light on critical decision-making processes within the maritime industry.
It was used to investigate cruise lines’ compliance decisions with the 2020 sulfur cap, revealing that fuel price fluctuations and government support had a minimal impact, while new vessel orders favored alternative fuels like LNG [27]. It was also applied to assess scrapping probabilities, considering vessel characteristics, market factors, and deviations from average freight rates [28]. Some authors explored shipowners’ vessel selection and size preferences using a multinomial logit model, and synthesized factors including internal company traits, market conditions, and competitor performance [29]. In addition, the model proved instrumental in estimating port-to-port cargo flow. By employing multinomial logit models, one study analyzed the effect of trade volume on ship size choice. It was found that trade volume, voyage distance, and dry bulk shipping index all impacted ship size preferences [30].
The existing literature predominantly focuses on assessing the commercial, operational, and technical viability of alternative marine fuels, as well as their potential for carbon emission reductions on an experimental basis. Notably, little research investigates the practical applications of these alternative fuels in the construction of new vessels. Furthermore, limited attention has been given to investigating the influential factors that shape shipowners’ decisions regarding the adoption of alternative fuels, and the temporal evolution of such choices. This research bridges the gap between academic research on energy choices in building new vessels and the actual responses of shipowners to regulations. It enriches the understanding of emission compliance decisions made by shipowners when ordering new vessels.

4. Conclusions

Implementing more stringent environmental regulations has placed significant pressure on the maritime industry. Meeting the IMO 2050 targets necessitates a profound transformation within global fleets. One part of the effort to achieve low or zero carbon shipping is to diversify marine fuels away from fossil fuels. This research may be among the first to present an empirical analysis of drivers shaping shipowners’ preferences for alternative fuels when ordering new vessels. Researchers propose an multinomial logit (MNL) model and employ worldwide newbuilding ship data spanning from January 2020 to July 2023 (encompassing 4712 vessels, 281 shipyards, and 967 shipping companies) for this analysis. Several noteworthy findings have emerged.
First, shipowners’ choices exhibit a significant correlation with their nationality. For example, shipowners from France, Singapore, Italy, and Germany display a greater inclination toward LNG capable, while shipowners from Singapore, France, and the Republic of Korea demonstrate a preference for methanol usage. “Ready” vessels are favored by shipowners from the Republic of Korea and Germany, while Singapore and Norway display an inclination towards exploring “other fuels” such as biofuel, battery, and ethane.
Second, vessel type emerges as a significant factor in shipowners’ selection of alternative fuels, while the size of the ship wields limited influence. Gas ships and ro-ro carriers tend to favor LNG, while others exhibit a higher probability for conventional fuels.
Third, the impact of freight market conditions is relatively modest, although a more favorable freight market may induce the adoption of alternative fuels when procuring new ships. But higher fleet idle rates diminish shipowners’ adoption of LNG and methanol. Notably, the ratio of LNG-to-fuel prices appears to exert no influence on shipowners’ inclination toward alternative fuels.
Fourthly, interest rates play a significant role in shaping shipowners’ decisions regarding various alternative marine fuels, primarily due to their association with financing costs.
Furthermore, the carbon emissions trading system acts as a catalyst for shipowners’ leanings towards wholly zero-carbon fuels, underlining the potency of policy mechanisms in shaping industry behaviors. It is also interesting to find that IMO policies and regulations have spurred demand for the construction of new energy-efficient ships.
These findings underscore that economic incentives alone may not be sufficient to motivate the maritime industry to embrace environmentally friendly fuels. Technological improvements and national policies wield substantial influence over these decisions. As the shipping industry charts its course towards sustainability, the shifting landscape necessitates that shipowners carefully assess the impact of various drivers on their investments. An in-depth understanding of these dynamics can lead to a balanced approach that aligns economic viability, environmental responsibility, and compliance with evolving regulations.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/jmse11101896

References

  1. Zis, T.; Psaraftis, H.N. Operational Measures to Mitigate and Reverse the Potential Modal Shifts Due to Environmental Legislation. Marit. Policy Manag. 2019, 46, 117–132.
  2. Psaraftis, H.N. Decarbonization of Maritime Transport: To Be or Not to Be? Marit. Econ. Logist. 2019, 21, 353–371.
  3. Hoffmann, P.N.; Eide, M.S.; Endresen, O. Effect of Proposed Co2 Emission Reduction Scenarios on Capital Expenditure. Marit. Policy Manag. 2012, 39, 443–460.
  4. Kim, K.; Lim, S.; Lee, C.H.; Lee, W.J.; Jeon, H.; Jung, J.W.; Jung, D.H. Forecasting Liquefied Natural Gas Bunker Prices Using Artificial Neural Network for Procurement Management. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1814.
  5. Vilhelmsen, C.; Lusby, R.; Larsen, J. Tramp Ship Routing and Scheduling with Integrated Bunker Optimization. EURO J. Transp. Logist. 2013, 32, 143–175.
  6. Xing, H.; Stuart, C.; Spence, S.; Chen, H. Alternative Fuel Options for Low Carbon Maritime Transportation: Pathways to 2050. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126651.
  7. Halim, R.A.; Kirstein, L.; Merk, O.; Martinez, L.M. Decarbonization Pathways for International Maritime Transport: A Model-Based Policy Impact Assessment. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2243.
  8. Balcombe, P.; Brierley, J.; Lewis, C.; Skatvedt, L.; Speirs, J.; Hawkes, A.; Staffell, I. How to Decarbonise International Shipping: Options for Fuels, Technologies and Policies. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 182, 72–88.
  9. Serra, P.; Fancello, G. Towards the Imo’s Ghg Goals: A Critical Overview of the Perspectives and Challenges of the Main Options for Decarbonizing International Shipping. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3220.
  10. Romano, A.; Yang, Z. Decarbonisation of Shipping: A State of the Art Survey for 2000–2020. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2021, 214, 105936.
  11. Mallouppas, G.; Yfantis, E.A. Decarbonization in Shipping Industry: A Review of Research, Technology Development, and Innovation Proposals. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 415.
  12. Bouman, E.A.; Lindstad, E.; Rialland, A.I.; Strømman, A.H. State-of-the-Art Technologies, Measures, and Potential for Reducing Ghg Emissions from Shipping—A Review. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 52, 408–421.
  13. Ampah, J.D.; Yusuf, A.A.; Afrane, S.; Jin, C.; Liu, H.F. Reviewing Two Decades of Cleaner Alternative Marine Fuels: Towards Imo’s Decarbonization of the Maritime Transport Sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 320, 128871.
  14. Tadros, M.; Ventura, M.; Soares, C.G. Review of Current Regulations, Available Technologies, and Future Trends in the Green Shipping Industry. Ocean. Eng. 2023, 280, 114670.
  15. Moshiul, A.M.; Mohammad, R.; Hira, F.A.; Maarop, N. Alternative Marine Fuel Research Advances and Future Trends: A Bibliometric Knowledge Mapping Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4947.
  16. Le Fevre, C. A Review of Demand Prospects for Lng as a Marine Transport Fuel; Oxford Institute for Energy Studies: Oxford, UK, 2018.
  17. Hansson, J.; Brynolf, S.; Fridell, E.; Lehtveer, M. The Potential Role of Ammonia as Marine Fuel-Based on Energy Systems Modeling and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3265.
  18. Priyanto, E.M.; Olcer, A.I.; Dalaklis, D.; Ballini, F. The Potential of Methanol as an Alternative Marine Fuel for Indonesian Domestic Shipping. Int. J. Marit. Eng. 2020, 162, 115–129.
  19. Lagouvardou, S.; Lagemann, B.; Psaraftis, H.N.; Lindstad, E.; Erikstad, S.O. Marginal Abatement Cost of Alternative Marine Fuels and the Role of Market-Based Measures. Nat. Energy 2023, 1–12.
  20. Kim, A.R.; Seo, Y.J. The Reduction of Sox Emissions in the Shipping Industry: The Case of Korean Companies. Mar. Policy 2019, 100, 98–106.
  21. Stalmokaite, I.; Yliskyla-Peuralahti, J. Sustainability Transitions in Baltic Sea Shipping: Exploring the Responses of Firms to Regulatory Changes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1916.
  22. Hansson, J.; Mansson, S.; Brynolf, S.; Grahn, M. Alternative Marine Fuels: Prospects Based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Involving Swedish Stakeholders. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 126, 159–173.
  23. Zhang, X.; Bao, Z.H.; Ge, Y.E. Investigating the Determinants of Shipowners’ Emission Abatement Solutions for Newbuilding Vessels. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 99, 102989.
  24. Makitie, T.; Steen, M.; Saether, E.A.; Bjorgum, O.; Poulsen, R.T. Norwegian Ship-Owners’ Adoption of Alternative Fuels. Energy Policy 2022, 163, 112869.
  25. Chen, S.; Zheng, S.Y.; Sys, C. Policies Focusing on Market-Based Measures Towards Shipping Decarbonization: Designs, Impacts and Avenues for Future Research. Transp. Policy 2023, 137, 109–124.
  26. Kaya, A.Y.; Erginer, K.E. An Analysis of Decision-Making Process of Shipowners for Implementing Energy Efficiency Measures on Existing Ships: The Case of Turkish Maritime Industry. Ocean. Eng. 2021, 241, 110001.
  27. Bao, Z.H.; Zhang, X.; Fu, G.Y. Factors Influencing Decision to Sulphur Oxide Emission Abatement for Cruise Shipping Companies. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2022, 1–20.
  28. Alizadeh, A.H.; Strandenes, S.P.; Thanopoulou, H. Capacity Retirement in the Dry Bulk Market: A Vessel Based Logit Model. Transp. Res. Part E-Logist. Transp. Rev. 2016, 92, 28–42.
  29. Fan, L.X.; Xie, J.Q. Identify Determinants of Container Ship Size Investment Choice. Marit. Policy Manag. 2023, 50, 219–234.
  30. Kanamoto, K.; Liwen, M.R.; Nakashima, M.; Shibasaki, R. Can Maritime Big Data Be Applied to Shipping Industry Analysis? Focussing on Commodities and Vessel Sizes of Dry Bulk Carriers. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2021, 23, 211–236.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback