The maritime sector is staying on course towards decarbonisation, with marine biofuels and LNG gaining traction in the short term, despite the IMO postponing its net-zero framework vote until October 2026, DNV global decarbonisation director Jason Stefanatos said.
No single fuel is likely to be adopted at scale in the medium to long term, and alternative marine fuels will coexist as part of the path to net zero, he said. Edited highlights follow.
IMO delegates have postponed a vote on the net-zero framework until next year. What's your view on the delay, and how might it impact the adoption of alternative bunker fuels?
The postponement of the IMO net-zero framework highlights the need for greater clarity on its practical implementation. But while the delay creates some uncertainty, the industry's decarbonisation targets remain unchanged. DNV's October 2025 AFI data confirms that the industry's commitment to alternative fuels remains strong
Which fuels are the leading trend in maritime decarbonisation in the short and long term?
In the short term, both LNG and biofuels are leading trends in maritime decarbonisation because of LNG bunkering infrastructure and because biofuels are drop-in. Over the longer term, the transition will diversify, adding more fuels in the mix, with methanol, ammonia, hydrogen and e-fuels expected to play roles as technology, supply and regulatory frameworks mature. There is no trend in the long term. The most suitable fuel and technology will be determined by each operator's specific fleet characteristics, operational requirements, overall commercial objectives, as well as global and regional geopolitical decisions and developments.
With the energy transition underway in the maritime sector, is ethanol an option for mid- and long-term decarbonisation?
Ethanol is technically feasible as a marine fuel, and has gained more popularity in the past months due to technical developments by engine makers and developments on the supply side. Although the vast majority today does not come from sustainable biomass, it is a promising new fuel that could play a role in the future. Its similarities with methanol enable methanol-fuelled vessels to easily switch to ethanol if needed, providing further fuel flexibility, which is important during high uncertainty times.
E-fuels have been identified as a potential net-zero fuel. How do you see their development as a marine fuel, considering they are not currently available at commercial scale?
E-fuels are presented as a long-term solution for maritime decarbonisation, but their commercial availability and cost competitiveness remain challenges for widespread adoption. Demand is expected to grow as regulatory requirements tighten, but supply will depend on large-scale investments in renewable energy and production capacity.
Ammonia is a possible alternative fuel for the future, but barriers to its adoption remain, DNV said in a recent publication. Why does it make sense to invest in ammonia as a bunker fuel when other fuels are more established and safer?
Ammonia has benefits and barriers on its adoption. On the benefits side, ammonia is a fuel without carbon content, can act as a hydrogen carrier, and has some basic infrastructure and technology in place, as there are already vessels operating with ammonia. On the other hand, safety and technical issues will require a lot of industry effort to be overcome.
The FuelEU Maritime regulation introduced a 2pc reduction target for GHG emissions from vessels in 2025. Individual EU countries are implementing their own RED III regulations this year. Are these emission policies driving demand for alternative fuels, or should the EU consider tightening its restrictions? And what do these regulations mean for the wider global market?
These regulations are drivers for alternative fuel demand in shipping and have contributed to accelerating investment in low-GHG fuels and technologies. However, the global impact will depend on how IMO regulations will be agreed and defined by the delegates. Some uncertainty remains as further regional regulations could lead to uneven competition and increased complexity for international operators.
