LNG is the most mature, scaleable, and commercially viable alternative fuel currently available for the marine industry, according to a new study conducted by class society DNV GL on behalf of industry coalition SEA\LNG.

In “Comparison of Alternative Marine Fuels”, the 64-page study that is being unveiled today, DNV GL assessed six alternative fuels – LPG, methanol, ammonia, advanced bio diesel, renewable hydrogen along with the fully electric option based on a review of existing academic and industry literature.

The class society then compared them to LNG against 11 different parameters, threw in low sulphur fuels and heavy fuel oil for a fuller comparison and added its own twelfth parameter of “commercial readiness” presenting the results in a traffic light style table.

SEA\LNG said the study notes that many promising alternative fuels currently lack the regulatory framework, production capability and bunkering infrastructure for widespread adoption, and are more expensive than traditional bunkers or LNG.

LNG fuelled ships

LNG-fuelled ships: 354

Existing LNG fuelled ships: 170

On order LNG-fuelled ships: 184

LNG ready ships: 141

Source: DNV GL

Speaking to TradeWinds, DNV GL senior consultant Jon Anders Ryste said that considering all 11 parameters LNG is “the most commercially viable solution today”, adding that unless there are significant regulatory changes it will take time for the other competing alternatives to catch up.

Talking about the study, Martin Wold, who is also a senior consultant with DNV GL, said: “This is a complex task for such a difficult topic as alternative fuels where there is no silver bullet.”

Wold said DNV GL sees a fuel mosaic for the future. He said LPG and methanol can compete on performance and cost but have yet to reach the LNG’s level of commercial readiness.

“LNG is the best available technology that we see for investment decisions being made now,” Wold said.

DNV GL senior consultant Martin Wold Photo: DNV GL

But he added that when looking at investment it is important to differentiate between the fuel and the technology, explaining that a dual fuel engine and LNG bunker tanks can also handle liquefied methane such as biogas and synthetic methane when these are commercially available.

“We believe LNG is a good option now because it really offers the best hedge available today,” Wold said. “I think we need to be honest that it is very difficult to pick a winner among all these fuels today but going with LNG ticks most of the boxes.”

Explaining the impetus behind the study, SEA\LNG general manager Steve Esau said there is an element of confusion in the industry on marine fuelling alternatives leading to owners holding back on investment decisions.

He said the aim of the study, which was commissioned in November 2018, was to “clear the mist” and provide some objective independent analysis of the operational and commercial readiness of alternative fuels.

Esau added that SEA\LNG is very conscious that owners are faced with the challenge of making the right investment decisions now to comply with IMO 2020 sulphur cap and longer-term emissions targets while trying to remain economically competitive.

He said that the industry group believes that once the industry experiences the operational implications of 2020 it will begin to move on new investments that comply with the sulphur cap.

Esau acknowledged that DNV GL is a member of SEA\LNG, but said that while other bodies to conduct the study had been considered, it felt the class society spoke the language of, and could communicate most effectively with the industry.

DNV GL president for maritime Torsten Schramm, said alternative fuels and propulsion technologies should be on the radar of every shipowner, especially those in the market for a newbuilding in the near future.

"LNG can play a valuable and positive role in improving the maritime industry’s emissions to air as we head toward 2030 and on to 2050," he said.

SEA\LNG has made the report publicly available.