Ship owners are increasingly favoring methanol over ammonia as a marine fuel alternative despite both offering significant emissions reduction potential, as safety concerns continue to cloud ammonia’s adoption pathway, according to the sustainability head of Proman, one of the world’s largest methanol and fertilizer producers.
While ammonia produces zero carbon dioxide emissions during combustion, its highly toxic nature and need for specialized handling infrastructure are proving major barriers to widespread adoption in the maritime sector. Concentrations as low as 300 ppm can be lethal, requiring extensive additional safety systems and specialized crew training.
In contrast, methanol is emerging as a more practical near-term solution for the shipping industry’s decarbonization efforts, with over 360 methanol-powered vessels either operating or on order by the end of last year, Proman’s sustainability head Heinz Peter Schild said March 20.
In addition to its toxicity, ammonia requires compression, refrigeration and additional bunkering safety requirements, Schild told the World Petrochemical Conference in Houston.
“We are still not convinced that a suitable safety solution has been found to ensure that ammonia can yet become a widely used fuel for shipping…other alternative fuels are already 10 years ahead in development,” he said.
Methanol will be the alternative bunker fuel of choice in 2030, at about 310,000 b/d, followed distantly by ammonia at about 60,000 b/d. By 2050, the positions reverse, with ammonia accounting for about 2.4 million b/d and methanol about 900,000 b/d, according to analysts at S&P Global Commodity Insights.
According to the Platts global bunker fuel cost calculator, 100% sustainable methanol as a bunker fuel in Singapore was worth $1,954.65/mt of very low sulfur fuel oil equivalent in February and green ammonia in Far East Asia was worth $1,954.97/mt VLSFOe. Delivered VLSFO at Singapore averaged $560.25/mt in February, Platts data showed.
Infrastructure edge
The fuel’s ability to be handled at ambient temperatures with minimal modifications to existing infrastructure is driving adoption across more than 120 ports globally, Schild said. Recent successful trials have also demonstrated methanol’s viability as a transition fuel.
A recent voyage using a blend of 20% green methanol and 80% conventional methanol achieved a 31% reduction in CO2 equivalent emissions compared to very low sulfur fuel oil, while meeting the International Maritime Organization’s 2025 emissions targets, according to Schild.
“While we and many ship owners are convinced by methanol or ammonia, we see a role for all alternative fuel solutions. There is no silver bullet on the journey to sustainability,” he said.
Industry stakeholders are calling for consistent greenhouse gas emissions calculations across alternative fuels to enable fair comparisons and certification systems for lower-carbon fuels. The upcoming IMO meeting is expected to address these regulatory frameworks.
The development of reliable carbon accounting systems will be crucial for the acceptance and uptake of methanol and other cleaner fuels worldwide, particularly as 2030 and 2050 emissions targets approach.
Source: Platts
