北京金正纵横信息咨询有限公司
在线联系

如果您有任何问题,欢迎联系我们

地址:北京市丰台区南三环西路16号

电话:010-63307508

邮箱:jzzh@jzoilgas.com

扫一扫关注“金正能源”公众号
我要咨询

请填写以下需求,我们将为您提供个性化的咨询服务

申请试用

请填写以下表单,我们将尽快为您提供试用服务

如果您想登录平台,进行为期14天的全功能试用,请您填写左侧表格内容并提交至邮箱, 我们将在2个工作日内与您联系,并告知您登陆账户及密码,如有需要, 我们可安排人员去您工作单位进行线下培训交流。如果您有任何问题,欢迎联系我们。

地址:北京市丰台区南三环西路16号

电话:010-63307508

邮箱:jzzh@jzoilgas.com

扫一扫关注“金正能源”公众号

A new study from the UCL Energy Institute’s Shipping and Oceans Research Group and UMAS, commissioned by the Global Maritime Forum, concludes that the International Maritime Organization’s recently agreed Net Zero Framework (NZF) sends a strong market signal favouring ammonia dual-fuel ships—particularly from the mid-2030s onward. However, ongoing uncertainties in policy design are holding back early investments in e-fuels and alternative marine fuels.

The report uses a total cost of operation (TCO) model to evaluate various fuel pathways under the new regulatory landscape set by the IMO. While the NZF offers clearer direction for shipowners weighing fuel investments, several key policy elements—such as the zero and near-zero (ZNZ) reward mechanism and surplus unit (SU) trading dynamics—remain unresolved.

“Many stakeholders were waiting for clarity from the IMO to make long-term decisions,” said Dr Tristan Smith, professor of energy and transport at the UCL Energy Institute. “While some uncertainties remain, the case for investing in ammonia dual-fuel ships is now compelling—even under conservative policy projections. In contrast, e-fuel producers still lack sufficient policy certainty to move forward at scale without additional government support or market opportunities.”

The study finds that ammonia dual-fuel vessels strike the best balance of flexibility, competitiveness, and compliance from the mid-2030s, even without considering future rewards for ZNZ fuels. When likely developments in the reward structure are factored in, e-ammonia could emerge as a cost-effective compliance option as early as 2028.

In contrast, ships relying solely on conventional fuels are now projected to be uncompetitive across both the short and mid-term, according to the TCO analysis. Not only do they face higher carbon compliance costs, but they also limit owners’ ability to capitalise on potential upside from future credits or trading mechanisms.

The report also addresses the ongoing debate around liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a transitional fuel. It finds LNG to be cost-competitive in the near term—particularly into the late 2020s. However, its long-term viability is severely constrained by its carbon intensity and lack of compatibility with the sustainability unit (SU) system without the use of onboard carbon capture.

LNG-fuelled ships would need to rely heavily on low-emission drop-in fuels such as bio-LNG or e-LNG—or else face increasing compliance penalties. The volatility in natural gas prices and the uncertain trajectory of abatement technology add further investment risk to LNG pathways.

The study underscores the pivotal role of the NZF’s regulatory tools—including the remedial unit (RU) price, surplus unit (SU) trading, and the ZNZ fuel reward mechanism. These tools will ultimately shape the competitiveness of fuels, yet their final design is still in flux.

Because of these uncertainties, the authors advocate for fuel and vessel investment decisions to be based on a range of scenario analyses, rather than static assumptions.

For ports and bunker infrastructure investors, the analysis offers a strong endorsement for prioritising ammonia-readiness. With demand for ammonia-fuelled vessels projected to rise sharply after 2030—and possibly earlier with favourable policy evolution—early infrastructure investments could yield strategic advantages.

For fuel producers, the outlook is more mixed. Conventional fuel and LNG suppliers face growing uncertainty, while biogenic fuel producers have clearer demand signals, provided they can maintain price competitiveness.

相关新闻
    暂无相关新闻