Engine Retrofit Guide v8

ENGINE RETROFIT REPORT 2023:
Applying alternative
fuels to existing ships
Contents
4 9
Technology and Investment case
Foreword 3 compliance 30 and economic 60
considerations feasibility
5
Current engine
Executive
4 retrofit 37 Appendix 1 66
Summary
technologies
Fleet and
1 technology
readiness
10
6 Fuel system
integration
47 Appendix 2 68
2 7
Retrofit
Regulatory
19 capacity and 51
drivers
capability
3
Training
Alternative
fuel readiness
23
8 and Human
Factors
55
Contents
Foreword
Amid efforts to decarbonise shipping before 2050, ship This guide charts the current status of engine retrofit
technology developments often focus on newbuild vessels. technology, integration capability and related compliance
But given the long working life of vessels, it is clear that requirements. Using methanol and ammonia as examples,
many ships originally designed and arranged to be powered it highlights the technical, regulatory and commercial issues
by fossil fuels are likely to remain in service by 2050, that will need to be addressed for engine retrofits to play
representing around 20% of the global fleet according to a significant role in the decarbonisation of the global
some forecasts. Decarbonising these vessels is therefore a maritime fleet.
crucial element of the maritime energy transition.
As one of the world’s leading class societies and with deep
One solution is to retrofit vessels to use carbon-neutral expertise in alternative fuels and decarbonisation projects
or zero-carbon fuels. This may require changes to engine, – including the world’s first methanol engine retrofit project
tank, pipework, systems and structure. Engine designers on the Stena Germanica in 2015 - Lloyd’s Register is well
have already prepared conversion packages for some fuels placed to help ship operators select, plan and navigate
and are developing solutions for others. Projects to retrofit a fleet decarbonisation pathway that ensures safety and
engines for methanol, for example, have begun for cruise and compliance while deploying retrofit technologies on
containerships, while interest in ammonia as a carbon-free existing vessels.
fuel means that engine technologies are being developed
with a view to application on existing vessels.
This report examines the application of alternative fuel
The decision to retrofit engines must be weighed against technology solutions to vessel conversions. For in-
several other options, including drop-in net-zero, near-zero depth information on the properties of alternative fuels
or absolute zero fuels, non-engine power technologies, themselves – including their safety characteristics and
or building new zero- or near-zero emissions tonnage. emissions profiles – explore Lloyd’s Register’s Fuel For
That decision will depend on the cost and feasibility of Thought series here:
technologies, system integration and fuels, as well as the
impact of new solutions on operating profile and costs, www.lr.org/fuelforthought
charter rates and carbon pricing exposure.
Many of those elements remain uncertain while net-zero

or near-zero carbon fuels are scaled up and as a regulatory
framework is established. Clarity on the capability to
perform engine retrofits is also hard to find. Some engine
technologies are ready to be installed, while for other fuels
they have yet to be developed. Applying new fuel systems to
Claudene Sharp-Patel,
ships built for conventional fuels also presents significant Global Technical Director,
design challenges, as well as demanding new skills Lloyd's Register
from repair yards.
3 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Foreword
Executive Summary
LR Engine Retrofit Report 2023

Decarbonising the existing fleet is an essential element of Fleet readiness Ammonia engine conversions are a more challenging and
shipping’s greenhouse gas reduction trajectory. Without it, more distant prospect. Newbuild engine concepts have yet
there could still be up to 20,000 merchant vessels running on Fleet readiness for zero-emission fuels is growing, with to be finalised and the safety issues around using ammonia
fossil fuels by 2050, putting the chance of net-zero emissions 225 ammonia- and 120 methanol-ready vessels in service as fuel, already expected to be challenging on vessels built
from the industry at risk. or on order at the time of publication. While ‘fuel ready’ for that purpose, will mean more complexity around retrofit
class notations certify that particular aspects of alternative packages and their installation.
This annual publication aims to track the state of engine fuel conversions have been approved in principle, or even
retrofit demand, capacity and uptake. In this initial edition, approved and implemented – and that the required level of
TRL Level description
methanol and ammonia are used as examples to consider safety can be achieved, subject to the work being carried out
the state of technology, compliance frameworks, systems correctly - they do not necessarily include detailed design, 1 Basic principle observed
integration capabilities and the business case for retrofitting. costs and conversion plans. This leaves uncertainty over the
By monitoring the development of these elements across costs and timescales required to make a vessel labelled as 2 Technology concept formulated
the years, the guide will highlight key areas of risk for ship ‘ready’ capable in practise of operating on zero-carbon fuel.
First assessment of feasibility concept
operators, owners and other stakeholders considering vessel To assist stakeholders in planning retrofits more effectively, 3
and technologies
conversions for alternative fuels. a Zero Ready Framework has been proposed to provide
additional clarity over vessel readiness. By committing Validation of integrated prototype in test
4
to only financing, building and ordering vessels that
Retrofit potential meet a clearly defined readiness level by specified dates,
environment
While fuel cost/availability and regulatory drivers remain stakeholders can better manage the risks of the energy 5 Testing prototype in user environment
uncertain, projecting demand is challenging. A maximum transition across existing fleets.
6 Pre-production product
addressable market of 9,000-12,900 large merchant vessels
7
was identified up to 2030, after which it is anticipated that
all vessels will be built with net-zero or near-zero carbon
Technology readiness Low scale pilot production demonstrated
8 Manufacturing fully tested, validated and qualified

fuels capability. In all likelihood only a small number of these Fuel conversion packages have yet to be deployed at
vessels will eventually be retrofitted as the business case scale and in many cases remain under development. The 9 Product fully operational
for converting older vessels (beyond ten years) and smaller cases of methanol, which is already used as a ship fuel,
vessels will likely remain challenging. However, converting and ammonia, which is emerging as a fuel candidate, have
even a fraction of this potential market will require new been studied to explore technology readiness for engine Technology TRL
capabilities and technologies from ship designers, conversions. The guide contains an in-depth review of the
shipyards and operators. current state of retrofit solutions (Section 5), as well as a Two-stroke engine retrofit package, methanol 4
Technology Readiness Level indicating the state of readiness
Four-stroke engine retrofit package, methanol 5
for commercial application.
Methanol fuel handling and storage 5
Methanol engine conversions are on the cusp of being
introduced at wider scale following an outlier early adoption Two-stroke engine retrofit package, ammonia 3
in 2015. At least two suppliers are ready to install engine
retrofit packages imminently, with more in advanced stages Four-stroke engine retrofit package, ammonia 3
of development.
Ammonia fuel handling and storage 3
5 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Executive Summary
System integration challenges 4 Safety arrangements: Venting, purging, ventilation Lloyd’s Register have developed a Risk Based Certification
and fire/gas leak detection and prevention all add to (RBC) process which is consistent with and based on MSC.1/
While conversions for alternative fuels depend on engine the complexity of applying alternative fuel systems to Circ.1455, and other related IMO guidelines, yet equally
technology readiness, the bigger challenge is integrating existing ship designs. applies to non-SOLAS projects. RBC is used where risk
the wider fuel system on existing vessels. The key issues assessment is required to inform certification and provide
can be summarised as: Across all these areas, designers need to maintain a focus confidence in new, novel and alternative designs.
on safety and minimising the exposure of crew to toxic and
1 Tanks: Larger tank volume requirements for fuels with flammable fuels. For an alternative fuel project, the risk-based process needs
lower energy density mean that finding the appropriate to meet the mandatory requirements in SOLAS Reg.II-1/55
place for tanks, meeting safety requirements with (including the IGF Code), the guidance in MSC.1/Circ.1455,
minimal impact on structural integrity and cargo Regulatory issues and be undertaken in accordance with the LR RBC process.
capacity, is challenging. Refer to Section 5 Classification Rules for further information
Current IMO requirements for the use of methanol as fuel
2 Fuel preparation: Some existing vessels designs may are given under the interim guidelines MSC.1/Circ.1621, on the application of RBC.
make it difficult to find a contained space for the fuel which includes goals, functional requirements, detailed
A further regulatory issue for engine retrofits is NOx
pumps and valve train that is close to the engine room. prescriptive requirements together with a requirement to
certification required under MARPOL after a major
undertake a risk assessment. Currently there are no IMO
3 Piping: The added cost and bigger dimensions of conversion. The regulations require a converted engine to be
requirements in place for ammonia as fuel and therefore
double-walled fuel piping means that ship conversion recertified for NOx emissions. If an identical certified engine
approvals are risk-based rather than prescriptive, meaning
pipe routings should be planned to minimise the does not exist, as will be the case for many early retrofits,
that in addition to the normal rigours of design appraisal
disruption to ship structures (such as bulkhead recertification means testing at sea or testing
a robust risk management process needs to be applied.
penetrations). a suitable engine at testbed, which can be challenging.
The approval process is outlined in the IMO Guidelines for
This issue is under discussion at IMO’s Pollution Prevention
Approval of Alternatives and Equivalents (MSC.1/Circ.1455).
and Control Committee.
Risk Based Certification (RBC) Process
Start 1. Design & Safety

Statement
2. Risk Assessment
3. Supporting
Studies
4. Final Design
Assessment
End
5. Construction and In-Service Assessments
Human Factor elements • Occupational health: Consideration of risks inherent
with fuels and new systems, and how these can
Electrical engineering: Enhanced monitoring (leak and fire
detection), automated mitigation systems (including purging,
The impact on crew working with new fuels needs careful be mitigated via design, procedure and personal firefighting, venting and ventilation), as well as more complex
consideration and must not be overlooked when equipping protection equipment. regulation of the fuel chain place new demands on vessel
an existing vessel for alternative fuels. Working on a vessel electrical and automation infrastructure. This will require
• Process safety hazards: How to manage, and promote
with these fuels, as well as operating and maintaining new greater electrical engineering skills from yards in order to
early recognition and response to, new circumstances
equipment, entail new risks. Assessment of human factors adapt or where necessary install entirely new systems.
where human activities may contribute to, exacerbate
(Section 8) goes beyond working conditions and schedules
or prevent recovery from a hazard.
to examine design and safety procedures to ensure that Fuel handling: Especially during the commissioning and
these risks are minimised. This should include: testing stages of the retrofit project, yards will need to have
• Ergonomics: Ensuring the design of a vessel and its

Retrofit Capability and Capacity the capacity to handle alternative fuels. Given the limited
number of existing alternative fuelled vessels in operation
components address the intended users’ capabilities Integrating alternative fuel systems on existing ships will
and their relative recent introduction – limiting repair yards’
and limitations given the operating circumstances demand new skills from repair yards. Among the skills cited
exposure to these vessels – this places a constraint on
and conditions. by ship designers (Section 7) are:
the number of repair yards currently capable of handling
• Roles and responsibilities: Demonstrating that Naval architecture: The design and location of system these projects.
responsibilities of crew are clearly defined and that elements including tanks, fuel preparation rooms and
These skills requirements mean that only a few repair yards
personnel can safely perform activities with the piping needs careful consideration to comply with safety
can be assessed as currently being capable of performing
resources provided. requirements, particularly the need for venting and
fuel conversions. Our modelling identified 16 yards with
hazardous zones. Assessing the impact of each part on the
• Competency and training: Crew have appropriate a maximum capacity of around 300 vessel conversions
vessel’s structural strength and stability is also critical.
training for the relevant fuel, any new technologies a year in total.
and existing skills with heightened relevance, such
as maintaining situation awareness and recognizing
Required yard capacity for fuel conversions
potential hazards. (No. Repairs x No. Days)
Required Capacity
• Resourcing: Enough crew are available to safely 100 Estimated
perform activities such as navigating, mooring, ship (No. Repairs x No. Days)
integrity and emergency response. 80
• Procedures and processes: How should control Average capacity of
processes be developed to address the criticality of the yards currently with fuel
60
handling capaility for
Millions
risk, and how is delivery managed to promote adherence

retrofits
from the crew.
40 (repair days)
Max. capacity of yards

20 currently with fuel
handling capaility for
0 retrofits
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 (repair days)
Techno-economic analysis The results demonstrate that although some sectors –
notably cruise and container ships - are close to adopting
The results of techno-economic modelling (Section 9) methanol fuel retrofits, the investment case across all
indicate that using renewable methanol or ammonia today segments is still very immature. For ammonia, the business
would more than double the fuel costs for vessels in all case for retrofitting remains hypothetical only until initial use
segments, at a global carbon price of US$100 per tonne. cases are observed.
For vessels with greater fuel consumption – notably the
large cruise and container ships - the additional fuel
costs in a year approach the price of a conventional Conclusion
newbuild vessel.
This report outlines the challenges that lie ahead for the
The low-cost scenario, in which both ammonia and industry if alternative fuel engine retrofits are to play an
methanol decrease in price by close to 50% and the carbon important role in the decarbonisation of shipping. The
price reaches an extremely high US$350, is just beyond the technologies and capabilities for retrofits are emerging.
tipping point at which alternative fuels become cheaper than While the business case for most vessels remains to be seen,
continued use of conventional fuels. that could change very quickly as more clarity emerges
on fuel costs, availability and regulatory drivers including
The cost of retrofitting is currently uncertain and will have carbon pricing.
a significant impact on the business case for both owner
and operator. As an example, the owner of a Newcastlemax Alternative fuels use as a whole is in its early stages, the
Vessel who wished to amortise the cost of a US$10 million application of these fuels to existing vessels even more so.
retrofit over ten years would need to charge an 11% premium As with any new use of technology, managing risks to
on current charter rates (at time of publication), representing crew, assets and operations is a fundamental first step.
a US$2,907 increase. This amounts to an extra US$1 million a The challenges identified in this report – and the progress
year on the charter cost for the operator, on top of the cost of tracked in future editions – highlight the work that remains
the new fuel. to be done in ensuring that those risks are mitigated.
Investment readiness
Current projects and market interest in engine retrofits
indicate differing levels of appetite across vessel segments.
Combined with the insights above on technology
development, retrofit capabilities and cost, Lloyd’s Register
formulated an Investment Readiness Level indicator for four
segments – cruise, containers, tankers and bulk carriers.
Methanol retrofit One example is tanking arrangements. On Germanica, the
methanol tanks were built inside ballast water tanks and
pioneer returns protected by a water-filled cofferdam to eliminate the risk

of leakage. Today the safety rules around methanol storage
after decade of require cofferdams around the tanks, except on those

surfaces bound by shell plating below the lowest possible
discovery waterline , a far less challenging proposition.
Operational experience has also delivered insights into

Since the landmark conversion of the Stena Germanica in safe use. For example, the location of leak detection is
2015, ship operator Stena Line has continued to embrace the paramount. Davidsson recalls that the original leak detection
potential of the fuel to reduce emissions across its existing arrangements on Germanica had to be reconfigured after
fleet. The company will convert further vessels in 2025, by detectors were placed in some cases above pipes or high
which time it will have amassed ten years of experience on on walls in machinery areas. That would work with gases
the original ro-pax. or vapour but as methanol is liquid at ambient conditions,
Retrofitting in 2025 is a very different prospect to the early leaks are more effectively detected at low levels.
challenges that Stena faced, says Oliver Davidsson, Fleet As Stena’s experience has grown, the company’s belief in
Sustainability Coordinator at Stena Line. methanol as a solution has also increased. While the original
“Stena had already been public about the potential of Germanica project was driven by the need to meet new
sulphur emission requirements, today it is greenhouse gas Experience is important, and it seems
methanol and already had some experience after a project
in which it has bunkered methanol and converted it to emissions that are propelling Stena’s investment in methanol as though Lloyd’s Register has the
dimethoxymethane [DME] onboard. But at that stage there retrofits. Methanol produced from renewable feedstocks – in experience when it comes to retrofits.
were no specific IMO or class rules, and component selection Sweden there are emerging projects using electricity from When we speak to some suppliers and
wind and pyrolysis – can reduce the fuel’s greenhouse gas
was a case of trial and error with suppliers; the information partners who have not been involved
available on materials was not entirely reliable.” intensity to nearly zero, helping operators to plan compliance
with forthcoming IMO and regional targets, as well as
in these projects, it feels like we are
With no rules, the Germanica conversion team adopted optimising exposure to carbon pricing. having those initial discussions about
a risk-based approach, with Lloyd’s Register coordinating the Germanica over again.”
large stakeholder meetings with members including ports, The past eight years have seen all parties in the original
national maritime authorities and technology suppliers, project build on their early learnings. The company will again
notably Wärtsilä, which was responsible for converting the work with Wärtsilä to deliver a turnkey technical solution
including fuel supply, engine conversions and automation. Oliver Davidsson
vessel’s engines (and will convert the forthcoming vessels).
The Port of Gothenburg and Stena recently conducted Fleet Sustainability Coordinator at Stena Line.
Today, the risk-based approach still applies as methanol-
fuelled vessels – and conversions in particular – remain the first ship-to-ship bunkering of methanol, adding new
relatively new. But the introduction of prescriptive rules operational flexibility to the deployment of the fuel. And
under IMO’s IGF Code and from class societies has Lloyd’s Register has developed full class rules and guidance
clarified many of the risks. that will make future conversions safer and less onerous.
1 Fleet and technology readiness

Assessing the market for These vessels will not all retrofit engines for alternative fuels. Looking at two of the most widely discussed alternative
Drop-in net-zero or near-zero carbon fuels that can be used in fuels, methanol and ammonia, published data suggests that
engine retrofits, the state existing engines, alternative power sources such as electricity there are 477 fuel ready and capable vessels in service and
of fleet readiness to deploy or direct wind propulsion, and carbon capture and storage
all compete with engine conversions as potential solutions
on order (to 3 May 2023). Of these, 249 are methanol ready/
capable and 228 are ammonia ready/capable. However, the
them and the readiness of the for decarbonising vessels in service. Vessel owners must also level of readiness is not generally defined and therefore the
weigh the benefit of decarbonising existing vessels against work required to convert from ready to capable is expected
technologies to be adopted. the option of replacing tonnage with zero-emission vessels. to vary widely.
A significant number of vessels built to use conventional But with the potential of retrofitting engines for net-zero or
near-zero carbon-neutral fuels – such as renewable ammonia If all the methanol- and ammonia-ready vessels in service
fuels will need to be decarbonised by 2050 if shipping is
and methanol – becoming a reality, it is likely to become an and on order today were converted, that would entail a
to meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. A
important part of the solution for this large segment of the total retrofit market of 345 vessels. However, the true size
proposal made by Japan1 during IMO talks on greenhouse
global fleet. of the market that will need to be converted to reach zero
gas emissions projects that, based on industry fleet
emissions by 2050 is much higher. This suggests that a
development projections, around 16,000-20,000 fossil-
deeper appraisal of vessel readiness is needed to understand
fuelled vessels over 5,000 gross tonnes – up to a third of the
large merchant fleet - will need to become zero-emission
Assessing fleet readiness exactly which vessels are retrofit candidates, as well as the
work and investment that will be needed in the conversion.
vessels by 2050 in order for shipping to reach net-zero The number of ‘fuel-ready’ vessels in service and on order
emissions. A review of the wider global IMO-regulated fleet gives an early indication of the potential uptake of engine As vessel readiness is only a preliminary and incomplete
by UMAS and E4tech2 anticipates that 15,000-16,000 vessels, retrofits. These vessels may hold a ‘ready’ recognition, such indicator of the demand for alternative fuel retrofits, more
roughly 15% of the fleet, will require retrofitting with zero- as a class notation or descriptive note, which indicates from analysis is needed to ascertain a realistic approximation of
emissions technology by 2050. a Classification perspective only that no insurmountable the potential market for engine conversions.
barriers exists for the future deployment of the recognized
fuel. Further work will be required to make these vessels
alternative fuel capable.
Ammonia and methanol ready vessels, in service and on order Methonol Ammonia and methanol capable vessels, in service and on order Methonol
Source: LR, IHS, Clarksons Renewable Intelligence Network Source: LR, IHS, Clarksons Renewable Intelligence Network
Ammonia Ammonia
135 76
48
61 76
30
23 44 33
34 87
15
18 16 11 30 4 4 8
30 38 29
18 13 2 1 1 22 3 3 1 3 7
Bulk Tanker Container Gas ship Gen / spec PCC / Passenger Passenger Misc. Other Bulk Tanker Container Gas ship Gen / spec PCC / Passenger Passenger Misc. Other
carrier ship cargo Ro-Ro - cruise - other carrier ship cargo Ro-Ro - cruise - other
11 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fleet and technology readiness

Understanding real
Zero Ready Framework
readiness: The Zero Readiness standard Criteria
Ready Framework Name Description Capabilities Additional

requirements
Comments
1
Vessel conversion is technically complex and involves
Near net zero Capable of bunkering All required Capabilities apply to -
significant costs. It may involve changes in layout, structural
GHG vessel and operating for equipment all energy sources
modifications to the vessel and replacement of pipework
and systems. Class readiness notations certify that the all onboard energy installed and onboard.
required level of safety can be achieved, subject to the work usage in all operating commissioned.
being carried out correctly and other specific requirements modes. Cannot be powered
being met, but do not include detailed design, costs and by fossil fuels.
conversion plans.
2 Low GHG
vessel
Capable of bunkering
and operating for
All required equip-
ment installed and
Capabilities apply to
primary propulsion.
Fossil pilot fuels
acceptable.
Retrofit costs will be significantly influenced by the level of
primary propulsion commissioned.
readiness, the scope of the conversion and the rules to be
in the mandatory of Dual/multi-fuels
applied. For this reason, the LR Maritime Decarbonisation
operating modes. acceptable.
Hub has developed the Zero Ready Framework, which aims
to provide the clarity needed to support strategic planning
and investment in assets. The framework as described in
3 Conversion
under
Primary propulsion
capable of using fuels
Minimum
requirements:
primary propulsion.
-
the table, enables a better understanding of the state of preparation in scope. Some key • Engine retrofitted
readiness of vessels for conversion and the costs involved in components already for fuel in scope.
delivering a zero-emissions vessel. installed but not yet
• Fuel storage tank
commissioned.
By using this framework in development of strategies and in place.
plans – as well as committing to only financing, building and
ordering vessels that meet a clearly defined readiness level 4 Designed for
conversion
Fossil fuel vessel with -
high level of detailed
primary propulsion.
Detailed design is
preferred to high level.
by specified dates – business can manage the risks faced in design for conversion. Ideally costings for
the energy transition and demonstrate climate commitments conversion provided.
5
to customers, business partners and end consumers.
Potential for Fossil fuel vessel with - Retrofit pack availa- Will become the norm
conversion main engine that ble for main engine. as dual or multi-fuel
could fuel in scope, engines become
if retrofitted. the default.
Fossil fuel Has no possibility None None -
only of retrofit.

Assessing the market 3 Vessel retrofits for methanol and ammonia will be
available from 2025 and 2027 respectively.
Vessel age at retrofit
for engine retrofits Applying these dates to industry fleet growth projections
The age at which a vessel is retrofitted is an important factor
in the business case for a conversion. The younger a vessel
Modelling performed by LR reveals a potential market of identifies how many vessels designed for conventional fuels is when retrofitted, the more years in service are remaining
9,000-12,900 large merchant vessels that could consider will still be in operation by 2050. for it to earn back investment on the retrofit. A retrofit for an
engine retrofits to decarbonise by 2050. Key factors older vessel could extend its service life by keeping it within
influencing the size of the market and the timing of retrofits Several of these vessels will not use engine conversion to
emissions compliance but would need to be weighed against
include the date by which shipping begins building only reach zero emissions. To find a vessel population where
the cost of early scrapping and replacing with a newbuild
zero-emission vessels, as well as the age at which owners retrofit uptake can be accurately analysed, the model
zero-emissions vessel.
or operators decide to retrofit their vessels. includes only container ship, bulk carrier and tanker vessels.
Two different assumptions for the age at which vessels will
After discussions with technology providers, a range of
be retrofitted under the current model:
Identifying retrofit candidates further criteria are applied to identify viable vessels for
retrofit. These include: 1 Maximum age of 10 years: Under this assumption,
To explore the number of candidates for engine retrofits
maximum age for retrofits is applied across vessel
in the global merchant fleet, the following initial • Vessels with electronically controlled engines
segments based on vessel values, but do not exceed 10
assumptions were made:
• Vessels from the current fleet with a maximum years. This aims to reflect the current commercial case
1 Within the next few years, the shipbuilding market age of eight years for retrofitting.
will receive a strong signal to build only zero-emission • Vessels with the following minimum size: 2 Maximum age of 15 years: This scenario assumes that
vessels. This could be a prescriptive requirement from
– Container ships: 8,000 TEU wider commercial case for retrofitting can be found, with
the IMO, for example, or a carbon-pricing measure that
uptake of retrofitting across the vessel population evenly
makes alternative fuel use significantly more attractive – Tankers: 50,000 DWT distributed at 5, 10 and 15 years.
than continuing to use fossil fuels. This provides a date
from which zero-emissions vessels will be built. – Bulk carriers: 150,000 DWT
Two potential starting periods are modelled:
While electronically controlled engines are a technical
a Starting from 2027, zero-emission vessel building pre-requisite of applying retrofit solutions, age and size
grows exponentially to 2032, by which time only requirements are related to the business case for conversion.
zero-em-ission vessels are built. It can therefore be reasonably assumed that, as retrofit
technology and installation capability increases in maturity,
b Starting from 2030, zero-emission vessel building the business case will broaden to include older and smaller
grows exponentially to 2035, by which time only vessels. This transition is modelled by assuming that initially,
zero-emission vessels are built. all vessels will meet the above age and size criteria, with
those restrictions being lifted five years after retrofitting
2 The global shipping industry’s target for decarbonisation
begins. In another scenario, retrofit uptake is modelled
will be advanced to aim for net-zero emissions
for all merchant vessels without this transition.
from international shipping by 2050 at the latest.
For simplicity, intermediate targets are excluded
from the model.

Forecasting fuel uptake Model scenarios
The most complex element of modelling retrofit uptake is Based on the above assumptions, three scenarios are modelled:
making assumptions on which fuels vessels will adopt. While
methanol and ammonia are currently viable fuel candidates 1 Early adoption of zero-emission newbuilds, maximum retrofit age of 10 years, no delay in uptake
for moving to zero-emissions, there are multiple other fuels on smaller vessels
that could be chosen, as well as technologies that could be
applied once developed (such as carbon capture).
Retrofit demand model (Scenario 1) - Number of vessels by year Methanol
To represent these alternatives, the model assumes that
20% of all candidates identified will opt for decarbonisation Ammonia
solutions beyond methanol and ammonia on current insights Other fuels
into fuel sentiment in specific markets. For example, bulk
carriers of 100,000 DWT and bigger are assumed to adopt
1,000 227
mainly ammonia, due to current indications that a substantial 214 218
production of and market for ammonia will exist on some 193
trades, including between Australia and China.
169
Meanwhile handysize chemical and product tankers are 155
assumed to adopt mainly methanol due to potential 142
128 645 679
synergies with their cargoes and the fact that their use 500 120 117 115 632
of ports near heavily populated areas makes ammonia 573
526
adoption more challenging. 484 420 83
337 424
It should be noted that these assumptions are based on the 481 466 242
very preliminary insight into fuel uptake currently available. 224 228 228
149 198 150
As such they are likely to change significantly as the scale 121 135 90 89
0
up and industry uptake of alternative fuels advances. As 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
already discussed, there are multiple alternative solutions
that are each advancing in maturity. The models described
below can therefore best be viewed as a representation of
This scenario envisions that the transition to building only zero-emission vessels begins in 2027. This leaves a population of
the maximum number of vessel candidates for methanol and
around 9,400 conventionally fuelled vessels still trading in 2050 that are candidates for retrofits. Under this scenario, around
ammonia retrofits in the global merchant fleet, rather than as
5,900 vessels are candidates for methanol retrofits while 1,600 are candidates for ammonia retrofits. The ten-year age limit on
a prediction of actual uptake.
converting vessels – and the fact that for some vessel types a retrofit is only likely to be viable at five years - means that the
retrofitting period is compressed between 2025, when methanol conversions begin, and 2036, when the last conventionally
fuelled vessels (built in 2031) are converted.

2 Early adoption of zero-emission newbuilds, maximum retrofit age of 15 years, 5-year delay in uptake on
smaller vessels
Retrofit demand model (Scenario 2) - Number of vessels by year Methanol

Ammonia
Other fuels
248
1,000 226
215
206
710 144
652
500 108 640 692
94 97
90 85
82 424
70
326
285 290 274 243
254 204
283 167 189
254
183 167 151 93
73 90 106 72 97
88 77 97
0
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045
Under Scenario 2, the same population of retrofit candidates is identified as in Scenario 1 because the starting date from
which zero-emission newbuilds are built is the same. However, two factors affect the time period over which retrofits could
potentially be taken up.
First, a five-year delay is assumed before the criteria for retrofit candidates can be extended so that smaller vessels are viable.
This models a slower advance in the maturity of retrofitting technology and capability. The result is a gentler initial uptake
followed by a dramatic increase in retrofitting activity from 2030, when smaller vessels become viable retrofit candidates.
Second, vessels are retrofit candidates up to 15 years of age, rather than a maximum of 10 years in Scenario 2. This means that
the last retrofits, on vessels built for conventional fuels in 2031, take place in 2045. There are no retrofits in 2046 because all
non-zero-emission vessels built in 2031 were in vessel types where retrofits are only viable at ten years or below.

3 Late adoption of zero-emission newbuilds, maximum retrofit age of 15 years, 5-year delay in uptake on smaller
vessels Retrofit demand
Retrofit demand model (Scenario 3) - Number of vessels by year
model summary
Methanol The retrofit demand model highlights a maximum
Ammonia potential market for methanol and ammonia retrofits
Other fuels (global merchant fleet excluding LNG-fuelled vessels
and gas carriers) of 12,900 vessels. The three scenarios
1,500 355 Current estimated
332 for uptake of methanol and ammonia engine retrofits
annual retrofit
highlights two key market dynamics:
capacity
279
• The vessel age at which retrofits are deemed viable
245
1,000 has a big impact on the timing, but not the volume,
1032 of retrofit demand. The same population of vessels
982
are retrofit candidates, but with lower retrofitting
844 157 ages, the timeframe in which retrofitting takes place
697 143
500 115 123 is compressed. This could have a significant impact
98 100 on the capability of shipyards to handle demand.
85 500 436
347 378
258 295 306 • The date from which zero-emission newbuilds only
231 388 348 199 194 192
282 273 137 are built is the biggest factor in determining the
98 112 113 130 134 88 94 88
0 82 83
number of potential retrofit candidates. The later
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047
the decision comes for the industry to build zero-
emission vessels, the more demand there
will be for engine retrofits.
Scenario 3 shows the impact of a late move to zero-emission newbuilding on the retrofit market. The retrofit age limit of 15
years and the five-year delay in applying retrofits to smaller vessels are the same as Scenario 2, but zero-emission newbuilding
starts in 2030 rather than 2027. From 2035, only zero-emission newbuild vessels are built.
The result of the delay in zero-emissions newbuilding is that a further 3,300 retrofit-candidate vessels built for conventional
fuels remain in service by 2050, taking the total potential market for engine retrofits to 12,270. Of these, around 7,300 could
retrofit methanol-fuelled engines, while 2,500 could opt for ammonia.
Given the late adoption of zero-emission newbuilds, that last conventionally fuelled vessels are built in 2034. This means that,
considering the maximum age of 15 years at the point of retrofitting, the last vessels could be converted for methanol and
ammonia in 2049. But as the vessels built in 2034 were only deemed viable retrofit candidates at ten years or younger, the
actual final year of the retrofitting phase is 2047.

Assessing technology readiness The assessments below are based on an evidence-gathering Four-stroke engine retrofit packages for methanol
process involving both engine designers and LR technology have already been deployed in service, namely on the Stena
experts. They provide a basis from which the further Germanica cruise ferry in 2015. Newbuild methanol engines,
While engine retrofit technology is at a relatively mature development of the technologies towards commercial which provide a base for development of retrofit solutions,
stage and on the verge of wider industry adoption, there application can be tracked. are already in service. There are current vessel projects that
are significant developments needed both in engine will introduce methanol engine retrofits within the next
development and in fuel handling and storage before two years. In some cases, engine designers are adopting a
ammonia can be considered ready for adoption. Engine retrofit packages retrofit-first approach, aiming to introduce retrofit solutions
An engine retrofit package consists of the on-engine fuel that can be applied across the portfolio before developing
Understanding the current state of retrofit technology methanol capability for specific engine sizes. This advanced
injection and combustion control components needed
development is another key factor in assisting ship owners state of development takes four-stroke methanol retrofit
for the new fuel, as well as any adaptations to lubrication
and other stakeholders with their decisions for decarbonising technology to TRL 5.
and cooling concept needed for the new combustion
existing vessels. Using the nine-point Technology Readiness
environment. These replace or supplement the existing fuel
Level (TRL) scale already in use by many organisations3, LR Four-stroke engine retrofit packages for ammonia
components on the original engine, mainly on the cylinder
has assessed the different technologies involved in engine have yet to be introduced to the market at prototype stage.
head. In-cylinder components and piping will also need to
retrofits: retrofit packages for four-stroke and two-stroke This follows from the fact that newbuild engine technology
be matched to the characteristics of the new fuel, including
engines, and fuel handling and storage technology. concepts have yet to be finalised or applied. Of the engine
pressure of supply/injection, resistance to corrosivity and
designers interviewed by LR, one has had a test-engine
any measures to prevent fuel leakage.
operating for more than two years, while another has yet to
TRL Level description In the case of four-stroke engines, retrofitting is not the only finalise the fuel injection concept. As the first assessment of
option for converting a vessel for alternative fuels. Vessels retrofit package concepts has yet to be completed, four-
1 Basic principle observed can also be re-engined, replacing the existing engines with stroke ammonia retrofit technology sits at TRL 3.
2 Technology concept formulated newbuild engines capable of using the required fuel. The
Two-stroke engine retrofit packages for methanol
availability of this option depends on the existence of a
are due to be introduced imminently, based on the designs
First assessment of feasibility concept newbuild engine and is not reflected in the TRLs below.
3 of methanol-fuelled newbuild engines that have been in
and technologies
service for several years. Orders have been placed for up to
Validation of integrated prototype in test Technology TRL 80 retrofits and interviews with engine designers revealed
4
environment strong immediate commercial interest in retrofitting two-
Four-stroke engine retrofit package, methanol 5 stroke engines. One developer is advancing its retrofit
5 Testing prototype in user environment technology project to be able to offer retrofit technology
Four-stroke engine retrofit package, ammonia 3
almost as soon as newbuild methanol capability has been
6 Pre-production product
Two-stroke engine retrofit package, methanol 4 achieved. However, with no pilot installation yet, there is
7 Low scale pilot production demonstrated no in-service prototype for two-stroke methanol retrofit
Two-stroke engine retrofit package, ammonia 3 packages, placing them at TRL 4.
9 Product fully operational

Two-stroke engine retrofit packages for ammonia
have yet to be formulated in technology concept, although
Methanol fuel handling and storage technologies
have already been deployed on both ferry/ro-ro and Investment &
initial interest has been confirmed in isolated vessel
segments. The first ammonia-fuelled two-stroke test engine
methanol tanker vessels. The maritime industry has long
experience of handling methanol as a cargo, meaning that community
is in development, with several open questions around
injection, combustion and emissions profile as well as safety
containment, piping and safe handling are already well
understood. Tank solutions and fuel supply systems are readiness
and maintenance concept. This very immature state puts established and available from multiple suppliers. Emissions Technology readiness is just one element of a solution
two-stroke ammonia retrofit technology at TRL 3. characteristics are known and manageable using existing being ready to be applied. The industry’s willingness
technology. Enhanced safety measures for using methanol to adopt a technology is also based on its investment
For more detailed description of the state of engine retrofit as fuel rather than cargo – for example venting, ventilation
technology readiness, see Section 5. readiness, which signifies whether the business case is
and fire control measures – have been deployed. These hypothetical or well proven. Community readiness is
technologies have already been used in a retrofit case and also crucial. This identifies whether the frameworks for
Fuel handling and storage will be used in others in the coming years, but a single retrofit
prototype to date puts them at TRL 5.
safe and publicly acceptable use of a technology and
fuel are in place for ships, ports and other
Fuel handling and storage technology includes the wider on-
Ammonia fuel handling and storage is at an earlier affected communities.
vessel fuel system around the engine, including fuel tanks,
fuel preparation (including fuel pumps, fuel valve trains, heat stage of development than methanol technology. While Using the same evidence-based approach used for
exchangers and filters), emissions abatement technologies storage and piping are known from decades of handling determining TRLs, LR followed a process established by
and safety equipment such as purging systems and vents. ammonia cargoes and refrigeration systems, handling as a its Maritime Decarbonisation Hub (MDH) for the Zero
fuel is largely untested. Some solutions needed as part of Carbon Fuel Monitor to determine the Investment
The TRLs assigned below reflect the maturity of these an ammonia fuel system are only in early design stage. One Readiness Level (IRL) of methanol and ammonia retrofits
technologies for both newbuild and retrofit applications, example is the ammonia release and mitigation system, in four separate vessel segments:
as the only difference is when the technologies are which prevents harm to crew and environmental damage
integrated – during initial construction or once the vessel by collecting ammonia from piping, valves and engine • Container ships
has entered service. However, due to the constraints of during purging, draining and other operations. Bilge systems • Cruise vessels
converting existing vessels, not all newbuild technologies capable of safely handling ammonia-contaminated water
may be suitable for use in a retrofit (see Section 6 for more have also yet to be developed, as have arrangements for • Bulk carriers
detail on system integration). disposal of the contaminated water. • Tankers
Technology TRL In some cases, the lack of regulatory guidance, for example The IRLs can be found in Section 9, along with
on venting and requirements, is also slowing development techno-economic analysis of the retrofit case for sample
Methanol fuel handling and storage 5 of solutions. Requirements for emissions abatement vessel types.
Ammonia fuel handling and storage 3 also depend on greater understanding of combustion
LR used the same process to determine a Community
performance, which will only come as engine testing
Readiness Level (CRL) for methanol and ammonia
advances. Significant development work remaining
retrofits. This indicates the maturity of safety frameworks
places ammonia fuel handling and storage at TRL 3.
and public acceptance. This can be found in Section 4,
alongside technical and compliance considerations for
alternative fuel retrofits.

2 Regulatory drivers

Regulatory efforts targeting IMO ambition and targets Any new intermediate targets will need to be supported with
more stringent CII, EEXI and EEDI requirements, or perhaps
decarbonisation are driving IMO adopted its revised GHG reduction strategy as with new measures aimed more specifically at driving zero or
Resolution MEPC.376(80) the 2023 IMO Strategy on
demand for fuel retrofits by Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships in July 2023. Key
near-zero carbon fuel uptake. For shipowners, understanding
their requirements at each step will be critical for deciding
placing targets on emissions elements of the strategy include: preferred compliance options across the lifecycle of their
vessels.
reduction, introducing • To peak GHG emissions as soon as possible and to
reach net-zero by or around, i.e., close to 2050, mindful
market-based measures and of different national circumstances. Lifecycle analysis guidelines
stimulating fuel availability. • To reduce GHG emissions on a well-to-wake basis, as IMO outcomes will also affect which fuels can help them
addressed in the LCA Guidelines. comply with emissions reduction requirements. IMO also
The pace at which the global shipping fleet takes up new
fuels will depend on both regulatory requirements and • To reduce GHG emissions within the boundaries of the approved resolution MEPC.376(80) the Guidelines on
investments in fuel availability. While the widespread energy system of international shipping and prevent a lifecycle GHG Intensity of marine fuels at MEPC 80 in July
availability of net-zero carbon ship fuels remains in the shift of emissions to other sectors. 2023. The well-to-wake and tank-to-wake emissions factors
early development phase (see Section 3), the regulatory attributed to each fuel in the guidelines are intended to be
• A reduction in CO2 emissions per transport work
architecture that will drive decarbonisation is already used in future IMO measures to reduce shipping emissions.
(carbon intensity) by 2030 to be at least 40% as an
emerging. average across international shipping compared to The fuel type, feedstock, conversion process and other
The societal will to decarbonise is enshrined in the global 2008 levels. sustainability criteria associated with each specific batch of
ambition to meet the Paris Agreement objective of limiting • Indicative checkpoints to reach net-zero GHG fuel will feed into compliance with any new IMO measure.
climate change to less than 1.5°C above pre-industrial emissions from international shipping of 20% striving This data will be displayed in some form in the bunker
temperatures. International shipping is not directly included for 30% by 2030, and 70% striving for 80% by 2040, delivery note via a new Fuel Lifecycle Label designed to be
in the agreement. This exclusion recognises the difficulty compared to 2008. compatible with IMO’s Data Collection System (DCS), with the
of apportioning ship emissions between countries, as well aim of requiring owners to report the information as part of
• Uptake of zero or near-zero GHG emission its annual DCS filing.
as the complexities faced by the International Maritime
technologies, fuels and/or energy sources to represent
Organization (IMO) in setting the global framework for
at least 5%, striving for 10%, of the energy used by
maritime emissions reduction.
international shipping by 2030.
Short-term measures and intermediate targets will set the
pace of change and influence decisions on fuel choices
for both new and existing vessels. The current measures –
namely the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), the Energy
Efficiency Design Index for Existing Ships (EEXI), and the
Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) – are already encouraging
ship owners to consider how to enhance their existing fleets
and build efficiency into newbuilds.
20 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Regulatory drivers
Market-based measures
Given the high cost of net-zero fuels compared to In addition the UK and US are contemplating their own
conventional ship fuels, a key role of regulation is to make market based measures. The UK is consulting upon a scheme
new fuels more cost competitive. This can be achieved by that would introduce an ETS for domestic voyages – those
both encouraging the scale up of new fuel production and emissions from voyages between one UK port and another,
distribution to reduce their cost, and by placing restrictions or within a port, or at berth - for vessels of 5,000GT and
or levies on fossil fuels to make them more expensive. IMO’s over. This is planned for 2026. By keeping its application to
ambition levels and future measures to regulate emissions domestic voyages, it avoids double counting with the EU
may act as a signal to spur investment in marine fuels, but scheme.
it has yet to adopt any market-based measures that would
deter owners from buying fossil fuels. The US has two proposals for consideration, a Bill for a Clean
Shipping Act which is broadly similar to FuelEU Maritime, and
The European Union has introduced both demand- and a Bill for an International Maritime Pollution Accountability
supply-side measures, through its Emissions Trading Scheme Act, which is broadly similar to the EU ETS. Both are intended
(ETS) and FuelEU Maritime Regulation. Passenger and cargo to commence in 2024, although neither has yet been passed
vessels of over 5,000GT sailing to, from or between EU ports and may take longer than to do so, if at all.
will be included in the ETS, which starts in 2024. Under a two-
year phase-in period, owners or operators will be required Harmonising regulatory
to pay for 40%, then 70% of their voyage emissions, or half of
that if vessels are arriving from or departing to a non-EU port. regimes
Some smaller vessels could be included from 2027.
The EU regimes mean that a considerable proportion of
The EU ETS could quickly make low-carbon fuels more global shipping will be subject to market-based measures
attractive. In February 2023 the ETS carbon price breached from 2024 and will need to decarbonise at a faster pace
€100 per tonne of CO2 equivalents for the first time, adding than demanded by current IMO legislation. The EU has
more than €300 to the cost of a tonne of HFO. committed to update its requirements if IMO measures,
when introduced, are in line with its own objectives.
The FuelEU Maritime Regulation imposes a direct
requirement on vessels to limit the greenhouse gas intensity But the EU is not the only region to be considering an
of energy used onboard. It is applied similarly to the ETS, ETS or a fuel carbon intensity requirement. In the UK, for
covering 100% of an intra-EU voyages or 50% if travelling to example, the Department of Transport’s Clean Maritime Plan
or from a non-EU port, and all energy used at berth in an EU envisions a trading scheme and has already announced a
port. The requirement for carbon intensity reduction of fuels UK Monitoring, Reporting and Verification requirement as
used scales from 2% in 2025 to 6% in 2030, and then to 80% a first step. The challenge for regulators, and potentially for
in five-yearly increments by 2050. From 2030 for container ship owners, will be to ensure that emerging regimes do not
and passenger vessels, and 2035 for other vessel types, there overlap, contradict or add to the burden of complying with a
is a further requirement to use on-shore power, with limited global framework.
exceptions.
EU carbon A penalty or reward is then calculated based on the extent of
under or over performance against the vessel or fleet’s target
VLSFO 19K TEU Boxship Fleet
wait & see scenario
x10
pricing and the for the year, and the cost of low-carbon fuel that would have
been needed to meet the target.
retrofit case For a large handy bulk carrier emitting 9,725 tonnes of CO2
equivalents (CO2e) on voyages to and from the EU, and 1,399
Analysis from LR highlights how EU’s carbon pricing 2030: 3.8 mil.€ x 10 = 38 mil.€
CO2e tonnes on intra-EU voyages or at berth in EU ports, the
initiatives, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) 2031: 3.8 mil.€ x 10 x 1.1 = 42 mil.€
cost of EUAs in 2026 would be €0.58 million, while the FuelEU
and FuelEU Maritime, could drive ship owners and 2032: 3.8 mil.€ x 10 x 1.2 = 45 mil.€
Maritime penalty would be €0.20 million if the ship keeps
operators to adopt alternative fuels. 2033: 3.8 mil.€ x 10 x 1.3 = 49 mil.€
using the same fossil fuel. But by 2035, the FuelEU Maritime
2034: 3.8 mil.€ x 10 x 1.4 = 52 mil.€
From 2024, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from ships penalty would be €0.71 million, while the EUA price would
≥5000GT in 2024 reported under the EU’s Monitoring, stay similar assuming the carbon market is stable. Looking to
Council of EU proposed a multiplier of:
Reporting and Verification (MRV) system will also be 2050, the FuelEU Maritime penalty reaches €3.60 million, six
included in the regional ETS. Those vessels in scope of times the EUA spend needed to cover emissions. 1 + (n -1)/10
the ETS will need to buy EU Allowances (EUA) to cover half These additional costs are likely to drive owners to consider Where n is the number of consecutive reporting
of their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to and from EU, whether switching to alternative fuels is a more cost-effective periods for which the company is subject to a remedial
Norwegian and Icelandic (EEA) ports, and all emissions for option. The EU rules offer the potential to offset an entire penalty for this ship
intra-EEA voyages and while at berth at EEA ports. In 2025, fleet penalties with just a few over-performing vessels. For
40% of the CO2 emissions from voyages and at berth stays example, a fleet of ten boxships could avoid around €277 e-methanol Transition
x10 + x1
in 2024 will be subject to the ETS, ramping up to 100% in million in FuelEU Maritime penalties in five years (2030-2034) green fuel scenario
2027. Just as the ETS phase-in ends there is a financial if they are joined by a single vessel fuelled with e-methanol.
double-hit for shipowners. In 2026, the MRV will also require That saving far outweighs the likely cost of building or
the reporting of CH4 (Methane) and N2O (Nitrous Oxide) retrofitting the methanol-fuelled containership.
emissions from ships, with EUAs to be paid on 100% of the
CO2 equivalent of those emissions, in addition to CO2, 2030 one ship running on
within the ETS from 2027.
The other mechanism is FuelEU Maritime, which will come

2031
2032
2033
e-methanol will create
enough surpluses to balance
deficits of ten VLSFO ships
= €0
into effect in 2025. The regulation sets targets for reducing 2034 in the same pool every year
the yearly average GHG intensity of the energy used by a ship
(or, crucially, by a fleet or pool of ships). The required GHG VLSFO / 91.4
intensity reduction starts small, at -2% in 2025 (compared 83.83 / GHGIE target
to a 2020 baseline), reaching -6% in 2030 and -14.5% in 2035, Deficit Surplus
through to -80% by 2050.
7.09 / e-methanol
3 Alternative fuel readiness

Forecasting where alternative Zero-Carbon Fuel Monitor
fuels will be available and at The Zero-Carbon Fuel Monitor is an evidence-based
framework developed by LR’s Maritime Decarbonisation
what price will be crucial Hub to assess the readiness of the most promising zero-
inputs to shipowner decisions carbon fuels and related technologies that could play a role
in getting the entire shipping industry to zero emissions
on how and when to convert by 2050. It is a resource for the industry showing the
current state of developments and indicating progress
existing vessels. towards industry-wide solutions. Zero-Carbon Fuel Monitor
If the ‘why’ of alternative fuel use is well understood, the addresses three fundamental questions for decarbonising
‘how’ remains far from clear. Ship operators have always the global fleet:
used fuel cost projections in determining the business
• How close is the fuel, and technology for its use,
case for newbuildings and conversions. When many of the
to being proven, scalable and safe?
potential fuel options have yet to emerge at commercial
scale, the uncertainty of such projections is even greater. • Is the business case robust enough to attract
investment?
This uncertainty is one reason for anticipating a growing
market for alternative fuel retrofits. The potential to • How prepared are people and organisations to adopt
convert vessels offers owners the flexibility to continue the new solution?
fleet development using established fuel options, with the The framework is structured into five main supply chain
potential to switch to other fuels when the case for their use stages across the lifetime of a fuel, from natural resources
can be established. But understanding when retrofitting will through to vessel propulsion. For each stage, Lloyd’s Register
become viable still depends on understanding fuel cost and experts rate fuel for technology, investment and community
availability, often from a very specific local basis. readiness levels – TRL, IRL and CRL respectively - based on
currently available evidence.
Lloyd’s Register has established two useful tools for
addressing these uncertainties. The Zero-Carbon Fuel The Zero-Carbon Fuel Monitor is regularly updated based on
Monitor assesses the readiness of fuels for maritime use in new evidence. The latest readiness levels can be viewed as
general, while with the First Movers Framework these options an online dashboard, including the rationale and evidence
can be narrowed down for particular trades. behind the readiness ratings, that can be found on LR's Zero
Carbon Fuel Monitor lr.org/ZCFM. The following charts show
the current summaries of TRL, IRL and CRL for renewable
ammonia, methanol and methane.
24 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alternative fuel readiness

Zero-Carbon Fuel Monitor
Technology Investment Community
Ammonia TRL, IRL Resource

9
8
Resource
9
8
Resource
9
8
and CRL summary 7

6
5
4
7
6
5
4
7
6
5
4
Propulsion 3
2
Production Propulsion 3
2
Production Propulsion 3 Production
2
1 1 1
0 0 0
Onboard Onboard Onboard

Bunkering Bunkering Bunkering
storage and storage and storage and
and ports and ports and ports
handling handling handling
Methanol TRL, IRL, Resource Resource Resource
CRL
9 9 9
8 8 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
summary
5 5 5
4 4 4
Propulsion 3 Production Propulsion 3 Production Propulsion 3 Production
2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0 0

Methane TRL, IRL, Resource

9
Resource
9
Resource
9
CRL summary 8
7
6
5
8
7
6
5
8
7
6
5
4 4 4
Propulsion 3
2
Production Propulsion 3 Production Propulsion 3 Production
2 2
1 1 1
0 0 0

Explore readiness levels: Technology Readiness Levels (1-9) Investment and Community Readiness Levels (1-6)
Note: Lloyd’s Register Zero-Carbon Fuel Monitor Dashboard, updated June 2023.
Zero carbon fuels are defined as energy systems that have the potential to deliver ship power with net-zero carbon dioxide emissions, inclusive of production and use.

First Movers Framework
While understanding the readiness of fuels is an essential element to considering future options, it can only be a starting
point. In a recent project1, The Lloyd’s Register Maritime Decarbonisation Hub set out to establish an analysis which would not
only highlight transition options but also show more clearly potential costs, risks and opportunities, as well as the steps and
further considerations needed to reach an end decarbonisation goal.
To do this, experts had to consider not only the transition of the fuel supply, but also the transition of the fleet to which the
fuels would be applied. The figure below illustrates how these two elements influence each other, with fleet fuel demand
forecasts helping to justify fuel production plans, and fuel price projections helping to model fleet costs. The combined
analysis, termed the First Movers Framework, can be used as a tool for collaboration between shipping and marine fuel
stakeholders to identify pathways to decarbonisation for specific fleets.
First Movers Framework – fleet and fuel supply analysis
Maritime challenges and trends Input Output Output Input Global challenges and trends
Newbuild and Fuel production

Fleet
retrofit plans plans
Energy source price
Global shipping Global energy
projections
projections projections
Fuel demand Fuel price
FUEL SUPPLY
Fleet decarbonisation
goals projections projections
FLEET
Shipping regulations: Fuel production Non-shipping fuel

international and
routes regulations
regional
Fleet transition
Fleet total costs Fuel supply costs
strategies
Onboard technology Onshore tech Onshore technology
developments developments
input costs
Onboard tech input
Emissions impacts Emissions impacts
costs
Decision making platform

Decision makers compare Common
outcomes across fuel Opportunities and threats Prioritise ‘system’ solution
transition strategies for each strategy and act is identified
(1) First Movers in Shipping’s Decarbonisation, Lloyd’s Register, December 2021: https://www.lr.org/en/marine-shipping/maritime-decarbonisation-hub/about/our-story/research-library/first-movers-in-shippings-decarbonisation/

Applied to the fleet of container feeders operating between Singapore and Hong Kong, the analysis showed that transitions
based on methanol, ammonia or hydrogen could achieve similar emissions reductions, but with very different infrastructures
and at different costs. Up to 2050, total fleet costs are lowest for the ammonia transition ($44.5 bn), followed by methanol
($51.5 bn) and then hydrogen ($69.4 bn).
Importantly for the current study, the First Movers Framework analysis of the East Asian container feeder fleet identified that,
in all fuel scenarios, approximately 26% of the transition (by number of ships up to 2050) is achieved through retrofitting.
While the case study is for a specific fleet, the high demand for retrofits in each scenario indicates that converting vessels for
alternative fuels will play a crucial role in a successful transition regardless of the fuels selected.
First Movers Framework Case Study – East Asian container feeder fleet newbuild and retrofit share by transition scenario
Methanol Transition Ammonia Transition Hydrogen Transition
Newbuild Retrofit Newbuild Retrofit Newbuild Retrofit
250 250 250

Cumulative Vessel Count
200 200 200
150 150 150

70% 73% 73%
100 100 100
50 50 50
30% 27% 27%
0 0 0
2020 2030 2040 2050 2020 2030 2040 2050 2020 2030 2040 2050

Lessons However, the future availability of LNG as an e-fuel or derived
from biomass could provide a net-zero or near-zero carbon
The methane slip issue highlights the need for technology
developers and potential users of alternative fuels to
from LNG equivalent that could be used in existing LNG engines. consider the full range of greenhouse gas contributors. In
the case of ammonia for example, N2O is one potential new
The biggest emissions challenge for LNG is methane, a emission source. Even hydrogen when released unburned
Retrofit solutions for converting merchant vessels to use potent greenhouse gas that is emitted at many stages of the
liquefied natural gas (LNG) have existed for nearly a decade, contributes to global warming.
LNG fuel supply chain, from production to use in engines.
since Nakilat’s LNG carrier Rasheeda had its main MAN Though relatively low compared to CO2 emissions, fugitive Retrofit challenges
engines adapted in 2015. Since then, uptake of LNG has methane has an outsized impact; it contributes 80 times
grown rapidly, while retrofits have remained uncommon. more than CO2 to global warming per tonne over a 20-year Installing LNG fuel systems on existing merchant vessels has
Looking at some of the factors around LNG retrofitting time frame, and 28 times more across a hundred-year span. proven to be not straightforward, as illustrated by the case
is valuable for identifying issues that are also relevant to While methane emissions from ships are not yet regulated, of the first retrofit on a large container vessel, Hapag-Lloyd’s
conversions for other fuels. they will be included in future IMO regulation with the Brussels Express (formerly Sajir). The project was carried out
Guidelines on lifecycle GHG intensity of marine fuels. As such, on a vessel that had already been classed as ‘LNG-ready’ but
Fuel cost took around nine months to complete at an estimated cost
methane slip from ship engines casts doubts on the GHG
One reason why LNG retrofits are relatively rare today is emissions reduction impact, as CO2e including CO2, CH4 and of US$35 million – highlighting that class ‘ready’ recognitions
the rising cost of the fuel compared to fuel oil. With many N2O, of LNG fuel. such as notations or descriptive notes, should not in isolation
newbuild dual-fuelled vessels choosing to operate on VLSFO be taken to indicate that a conversion will be simple; it
while gas prices are high, there is little business case for Initiatives are underway to minimise methane emissions depends on the scope and level of the recognition.
converting to dual-fuel LNG engines only to be forced into from both upstream production and downstream use.
High-pressure injection engines already offer very low The retrofit cost and time off-hire are considerable obstacles
diesel operation. Adopters of other alternative fuels will also to all alternative fuel retrofits, as are the space requirements
face cost hurdles, as even with significant carbon pricing methane slip, while OEMs of low-pressure injection engines
are working to optimise combustion to reduce unburned for fuel systems. On Sajir, the equivalent of 350 TEU was lost
these fuels are unlikely to be competitive with fuel oil, either to install LNG tanks and pipework. For fuels like methanol
in price or availability, in the next few years. methane, as well as considering new methane abatement
technologies including catalytic reduction. and ammonia, which require even more tank volume than
Emissions profile LNG, careful design will be needed to avoid even greater
One important industry project to maximise the greenhouse sacrifices in cargo capacity.
Another reason for the low market interest in LNG retrofits gas reduction potential of LNG fuel is the Methane
is the fuel’s emissions profile. LNG was originally adopted Abatement in Maritime Innovation Initiative (MAMII), Since Sajir there has been development in fuel system design
as a marine fuel to meet sulphur emissions limits and also established in 2022 by Lloyd’s Register’s Safetytech and integration capability, with the potential to dramatically
offers NOx Tier III compliance without aftertreatment for Accelerator. Supported by several ship operators and fuel reduce installation time and cargo compromises. However,
certain engine types. When it comes to greenhouse gases, suppliers (including Maran Gas Maritime, MSC, Carnival partly due to the challenges of the high-profile project as well
LNG offers reduced tank-to-wake emissions of CO2 (up to Corporation, Seaspan, Shell and Knutsen Group), the as other market dynamics, few poster cases have emerged
23% compared to fuel oil). This taken alone is a significant project aims to propose novel methane reduction methods for the viable retrofitting of large merchant vessels.
step towards intermediate decarbonisation targets, albeit to industry, drawing on the expertise of academics, civil
relatively small compared to green methanol or zero-carbon society, and other stakeholders including the UK’s National
green ammonia. Physical Laboratory.

Regulation, safety A case for LPG
and training Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), consisting of propane and butane mixes, is a niche marine fuel that is increasingly used
by vessels that carry the fuel, which can include dedicated LPG carriers or ethane carriers. It also has similarities with
An early hinderance to the uptake of LNG was the lack of ammonia in regard to engine fuel systems, with MAN Energy Solutions initiating its ammonia engine development from
a regulatory framework both on ships and ashore. IMO’s the base of its existing ME-LGIP engine, which runs on LPG and has already been successfully retrofitted.
IGF Code was initially developed to accommodate the use
of LNG as fuel beyond gas carriers. Today that framework While LPG offers limited advantages over fuel oil in terms of GHG emissions, advances have recently been made in the
is being extended as other low-flashpoint or gas fuels are production of biomass and electricity derived equivalents, which could result in near-zero carbon fuels. Carbon capture
considered for marine use. The code now includes interim is a potential avenue for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil LPG and, given similarities to ammonia
guidelines for methyl and ethyl acohol and LPG while when used as fuel, a retrofit pathway from LPG to zero-carbon ammonia could also be explored. The benefits for ship
ammonia and hydrogen rules are under development. operators of using LPG would include its relatively stable low price and its wide availability.
As LNG use has increased, formal frameworks for crew Lloyd’s Register is a member of the World LPG Association (WLPGA) and chairs its Marine Working Group. Together
training and safe handling while bunkering in port have with WLPGA, Lloyd’s Register is developing a guide to using LPG as a marine fuel, supported by a feasibility study for a
emerged across the world. These frameworks, which retrofit case of an LPG dual-fuel main engine onboard a container ship in service. The initiative aims to further inform
provide guidance for handling a cryogenic, pressurised, stakeholders on the opportunities of LPG as a marine fuel, highlighting its characteristics, while exploring environmental
low flashpoint, gaseous fuel, can also be used as a starting sustainability and commercial potential.
point from which regulators including port authorities can
develop rules around other alternative fuels.

4
Technology and
compliance considerations

The rules to which alternatively required to keep toxicity risks to crew within published
tolerable limits.
In the case of methanol, ammonia or ethanol, IMO’s MSC.1/
Circ.1621 interim guidelines (see below) follow the IGF Code
fuelled vessels are designed, format and include detailed prescriptive requirements for
certified and classed are in For fuel conversions, key design challenges include methanol that meet the IGF Code goals and functional
requirements.
demonstrating two key factors:
various stages of development, For all vessels projects using alternative fuels, a key question
• Ensuring that the system and all sub systems meet
with particular challenges the goals and functional requirements of the under the IGF Code is how the design will meet the functional
requirements of IGF 3.2 where IMO has not published
for owners considering fuel IGF Code.
prescriptive requirements such as those in Part A-1 of the IGF
conversions. • Meeting the NOx recertification requirements for
engines retrofitted for new fuels.
Code and MSC.1/Circ.1621.
The ship design and systems needed to use methanol IGF Code functional requirements for all fuels
and ammonia as fuel are regulated by IMO under both
safety (SOLAS) and environmental (MARPOL) conventions. SOLAS requirements Part A Functional requirement
Section 6 details the systems involved and how they can IGF Code The safety, reliability and dependability of the
be integrated in vessel conversions. This section provides
systems shall be equivalent to that achieved
an overview of the status of regulations governing use of The IMO requirements for vessels using methanol and 3.2.1
with new and comparable conventional oil-
methanol and ammonia, as well as areas that will require ammonia fall under the mandatory International Code of
fuelled main and auxiliary machinery.
particular consideration for vessel retrofits. Safety for Ship Using Gases or Other Low-flashpoint Fuels
(IGF Code5). The probability and consequences of fuel-
At present, operators planning both newbuild and retrofitted
related hazards shall be limited to a minimum
ships using these fuels must follow an ‘alternative design’ While the IGF Code currently contains detailed requirements
through arrangement and system design, such
approach, based on risk assessments and approval by flag for the use of only natural gas as fuel it does contain goals
3.2.2 as ventilation, detection and safety actions. In
and class. More well-established rules will eventually improve and corresponding functional requirements, as well as
the event of gas leakage or failure of the risk
the ease and cost of designing these vessels. training requirements, which are generic to all gaseous and
reducing measures, necessary safety actions
low flashpoint fuels. The detailed prescriptive requirements
While IMO statutory instruments and class rulesets are shall be initiated.
under Part A-1 of the IGF Code have been developed to meet
under development, Lloyd’s Register has issued full rules these goals and functional requirements for natural gas
and guidance for vessels using methanol, ammonia and The design philosophy shall ensure that risk
(methane). reducing measures and safety actions for
hydrogen, and applies the established ShipRight Risk 3.2.3
Based Certification (RBC) process. To use gases or low-flashpoint fuels other than methane, the the gas fuel installation do not lead to an
alternative design provisions from Part A, 2.3 of the IGF Code unacceptable loss of power.
A joint study into ammonia safety onboard ships undertaken need to be applied, requiring an engineering analysis to be
by the Lloyd’s Register (LR) Maritime Decarbonisation Hub submitted to the Flag administration, in accordance with For newbuild projects and also for retrofits - where new
and the Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon SOLAS regulation II-1/55 and associated guidelines6. This machinery, fuel processing and storage, piping and safety
Shipping (MMMCZCS) provides recommendations for design process follows a risk-based approach for approval of the measures must be tailored to an individual vessel’s layout -
and operation of ammonia-fuelled vessels. (Reference to design to ensure the goals and functional requirements of proving these functional requirements are met demands a
report.) The study identifies a range of mitigation methods, the IGF Code have been met. rigorous design assessment process.
from ship design to crew training and operations, that are
31 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Technology and compliance considerations

Interim methanol guidelines The IGC Code (Chapter 16 Use of Cargo as Fuel) rather than Due to the requirement for NOx recertification only if there is
IGF Code applies to liquefied gas carriers using their cargo as no tested matching engine, this issue will become less of an
In November 2020, IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee fuel under the ‘one ship, one code’ amendments to SOLAS obstacle as more retrofitted engines enter service. Meanwhile
approved the ‘Interim guidelines for the safety of ships using II-1 made with the adoption of the IGF Code. However the LR is collaborating with OEMs to formulate potential
methyl/ethyl alcohol as fuel’ as MSC.1/Circ.1621 under the IGC Code, Chapter 16.9.2 prohibits the consumption of toxic proposals to adapt the NOx certification requirements for
framework of the IGF Code7. These guidelines are planned cargoes, including ammonia, as fuel. Current proposals to retrofitted engines. These proposals will need to be adopted
to be incorporated into the IGF Code at a later date . These amend the clause could be approved by December 2024 at by IMO as amendments to the NOx Code.
guidelines follow the format of the IGF Code structure with the earliest.
goals and functional requirements specific to methyl/
ethyl alcohol fuels and detailed prescriptive requirements Classification rules
that meet those goals and functional requirements. The MARPOL requirements The IGF Code is reflected in LR’s Rules and Regulations
guidelines also require a risk assessment to be undertaken. NOx recertification for the Classification of Ships using Gases or other Low-
IGC Code flashpoint Fuels. The interim methyl and ethyl alcohol
For retrofits in particular, the IMO NOx Technical Code
guidelines are reflected in LR’s Requirements for Ships Using
The International Code of the Construction and Equipment 2008 is an important consideration. Through MARPOL
Methyl Alcohol (Methanol) or Ethyl Alcohol Appendix LR1
of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code) includes Annex VI Regulation 13, a dual fuel retrofit would count
to those Rules. LR's rules for ships using ammonia as fuel
provision for burning methane and other non-toxic cargoes as a ‘substantial modification’, requiring that the engine
are effective from July 2023, and LR has also published the
as fuel, but does not specifically govern gas-fuelled ships. maintains the NOx emission tier level determined by the date
industry's first rules for ships using hydrogen as fuel.
In the absence of IMO legislation for ammonia-fuelled of the vessel’s original keel laying date.
vessels, IGC requirements around fuel tanks, materials and A retrofitted engine would likely have NOx critical
safety precautions around ammonia are useful for assisting components changed, this means that the retrofitted
ammonia-fuelled ship design. These include: engine would need to be recertified and the NOx Technical
• Personnel protection (14.4): Self-contained breathing File updated. Unless a matching engine with the same
apparatus and gas-tight protective clothing for all components exists and has already been NOx certified,
onboard personnel; decontamination shower facilities. which could form a basis for recertifying the retrofitted
engine, recertification would require either a test on an
• Material compatibility (17.2.1): Materials to be identical engine on the testbed or testing once retrofitted.
resistant to the corrosive action of gases and materials
such as mercury, copper and copper-bearing alloys, and Particularly in the early stages of alternative fuel conversions,
zinc not to be used for construction of cargo tanks and NOx recertification requirements pose a challenge to ship
associated pipelines, valves, fittings and other items of designers that can significantly add to the cost of a retrofit
equipment normally in direct contact with the cargo project. If no matching engine has previously been tested,
liquid or vapour. the cost involved in sourcing and modifying an engine to
match, and test could be high. Testing a modified engine in
• Stress Corrosion Cracking (17.12): Requirements
situ necessitates considerable disruption to operations as the
to minimise the risk of stress corrosion cracking in
engine needs to be operated at a steady state for long periods,
containment and process systems made of carbon-
which is unlikely to be compatible with a vessel’s voyage plan.
manganese steel or nickel steel.

Rules applicable
Design/equipment area Rules goal Methanol Ammonia
Ship Design and To provide for safe location, space arrangements LR LFP Appendix LR1 Part A-1, 5; otherwise Rules LR LFP Appendix LR2, Part A-1, S; otherwise LR LFP
Arrangement and mechanical protection of power generation and Regulations for the Classification of Ships and Part A-1 and Part A-2
equipment:, fuel storage systems, fuel supply the Rules and Regulations for the Construction and
equipment and refuelling systems Classification of Ships for the Carriage of Liquid
Chemicals in
Fuel Containment To provide that gas storage/fuel containment is LR LFP Appendix LR1 Part-A-1, 6; otherwise LR LFP Appendix LR2, Part A-1, 6; otherwise LR
System adequate so as to minimize the risk to personnel, Rules and Regulations for the Construction and LFP Part A-1 6.3; Rules and Regulations for the
the ship and the environment to a level that is Classification of Ships for the Carriage of Liquid Construction and Classification of Ships for the
equivalent: to a conventional oil fuelled ship Chemicals in Bulk Carriage of Liquefied Gases, in Bulk Ch. 4 Part E,
Ch. 4 Part A4 .5, Ch 6, Ch 17.12
Material and General To ensure the safe handling of fuel, under all LR LFP Appendix LR1 Part A-1, 7; otherwise LR LFP Appendix LR2 Part A-1~ 7; otherwise LR LFP
Pipe Design operating conditions, to minimize the risk to the Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Part A-1 7.3; Rules and Regulations; Rules
ship, personnel and to the environment, having Ships, Pt 5, Ch 12; Rules and Regulations for the for the Manufacture Testing and Certification
regard to the nature of the products involved Construction and Classification of Ships for the of Materials, July 2022.
Carriage of Liquid Chemicals in Bulk, Ch 5; Rules For the Classificat ion of Ships, Pt 5, Ch 12;
for the Manufacture, Testing and Certification of Rules and Regulations for the Construction and
Materials Classification of Ships for the Carriage of Liquid
Chemicals in Bulk, Ch 5, Ch 17.12
Bunkering To provide for suitable systems on board the LFP Appendix LR1 A-18; LFP Appendix LR2 A-1 8 and LFP A-1 8.3, 8.4, 8.5;
ship to ensure that bunkering can be conducted LFP B-1 16. 7
without causing danger to persons, the
environment or the ship
Supply to Consumers To ensure safe and reliable distribution of fuel to LFP Appendix LR1 A-19 LFP Appendix LR2 A-1 9; LFP A-19.3 9.9; Rules and
the consumers Regulations for the Classification of Ships
Pt S Ch 11
Power Generation To provide safe and reliable delivery of LFP Appendix LR1 A-1 10; Rules and Regulations LFP Appendix LR2 A-110; LFP A-1 10.3; Rules and
Including Propulsion and mechanical, electrical or thermal energy for the Classification of Ships Pt 5, Pt 6 Regulations for the Classification of Ships Pt 5
Other Gas Consumers

Rules applicable
Design/equipment area Rules goal Methanol Ammonia
Fire Safety To provide fire protection, detection and fighting LFP Appendix LRl A-1 11; Rules and Regulations LFP Appendix LR2 Aa-111; LFP A-1 11,15
for all systems related to storing, handling, for the Classification of Ships, Pt 6
transfer and use of methyl/ethyl alcohol as fuel
Explosion (and Toxic To provide for the prevention of explosions LFP Appendix LR1 A-112; Rules and Regulations LFP Appendix LR2 A-111; LFP A-1 11. 7, 12.3-12.5, 15
Injury) Prevention and for the limitation of their effects, and for the Classification of Ships, Pt 6
(for ammonia) to provide for the prevention
of toxic injury
Ventilation To provide for the ventilation required for safe LFP Appendix LR1 A-1 13 LFP Appendix LR2 A-113; LFP A-1 13.3-13.8, 15.8
working conditions for personnel and the safe
operation of machinery and equipment
Electrical Installations To provide for electrical installations that LFP Appendix LR1 A-1 14; Rules and Regulations LFP Appendix LR2 A-1 A-14; LFP A-1 14.3
minimizes the risk of ignition in the presence of a for the Classification of Ships, Pt 6
flammable atmosphere
Control, Monitoring and To provide for the arrangement of control, LFP Appendix LR1 A-1 15; Rules and Regulations LFP Appendix A-1 LR2; LFP A-1 9.3J 15.3-15. 10;
Safety Systems monitoring and safety systems that support for the Classification of Ships Pt 5, Pt 6 Rules and Regulations
an efficient: and safe operation of the fuel For the Classification of Ships, Pt 6
installations
Drills and Emergency To ensure that seafarers on board ships to which LFP Appendix LRl A-1 16, Not drafted
Exercises these guidelines apply, are adequately qualified,
trained and experienced
Operation To ensure that operational procedures for the LFP Appendix LR1 A-1 16 Not drafted
loading, storage, operation, maintenance and
inspection of systems for fuels minimize the risk to
personnel, the ship and the environment and that
are consistent with practices for a conventional oil
fuelled ship whilst taking into account the nature
of these fuels

Risk Based RBC-3: Supporting studies for installation and commissioning, which need to be
documented by the Submitter and submitted to LR
Certification
The actions documented in the Risk Assessment Study for appraisal.
Report could require supporting studies, for example: to
help address details that were unknown at RBC-2 stage The purpose of RBC-5b is to develop and deliver the in-
To help owners navigate the certification process needed or uncertainties in risk assessment inputs, to confirm the service documentation, including Operation Manuals,
for both methanol and ammonia-fuelled vessels, LR uses suitability of design options or changes, or to help inform Maintenance Programme, Survey Requirements and
the ShipRight Risk Based Certification (RBC) to demonstrate construction and in-service requirements, inspection, testing through-life process for Change Management. The output
equivalence with SOLAS Alternative Designs and and analysis requirements. of RBC-5b needs to be a written ToR and the in-service
Arrangements (II-1 Reg. 55, II-2 Reg.17 and III, Reg. 38). The documentation, both of which need to be documented by
five-stage process is described in the ‘Process for Risk Based The output of each RBC-3 study needs to be a written the submitter and submitted to LR for appraisal.
Design’ flow diagram below. ToR and a Supporting Study Report documented by the
Submitter and submitted to LR for appraisal.
RBC-1: Design & Safety Statement
RBC-4: Final Design Assessment
The output of RBC-1 needs to be a Design and Safety
Statement Report prepared by the submitter and submitted The Final Design Assessment (RBC-4) needs to be a study of
to LR for appraisal. This report should identify stakeholders the ‘completed’ design that has been informed and revised
and their principal roles, describe the design and its intended by all RBC stages. Its purpose is to determine if further
use, list the rules and instruments under which the design modification or refinement is required for ‘acceptance’ of
is to be appraised, and provide an outline plan for RBC the risks presented by the design, to summarise why the
completion. design should be accepted by LR and/or the regulator,
and to provide input to design appraisal and third-party
To assist in design understanding and development, certification.
there may be a requirement or a request for a Preliminary
Appraisal of Rules (PAR, sometimes referred to as ‘Design The output of RBC-4 needs to be a written ToR, a Final Design
Screening’). Essentially, PAR is a screening of the design Assessment Study Report and all in-service documentation
against applicable rules, instruments and goals. required in RBC-5, below.
RBC-2: Risk Assessment RBC-5:
The output of RBC-2 needs to be a written ToR and a RBC-5a is a study of the requirements for construction,
Risk Assessment Study Report, both of which need to be installation and commissioning of the design that has been
documented by the Submitter and submitted to LR for informed and revised by the previous stages. The output
appraisal. of RBC-5a needs to be a written TOR and procedures

Risk Based Certification (RBC) Process
Start 1. Design & Safety

Statement
2. Risk Assessment
3. Supporting
Studies
4. Final Design
Assessment
End
5. Construction and In-Service Assessments
Source: ShipRight Design & Construction, Risk Management, Risk Based Certification, September 2021
LR Gas Technology Specialist Sobhith Hariharan explains how the RBC process can be applied to a retrofitted
ammonia-fuelled vessel.
If you are adding ammonia as a fuel, you are adding a number of different components
and elements to a standard design. So, the first exercise is to find out what these
essential additional components are. And then by adding all these, what additional
risks are you adding on to the vessel's design and operation? If you’re adding the risk,
how do you manage that?”
This process is iterated until the safety criteria are satisfied. As the process continues and the design evolves, more
granular risk assessments and HAZOP workshops focus on minimising each individual risk. Once all revisions and
supporting studies have been completed, and mitigating measures have been shown to be effective, the final design
assessment report is completed.
“This is essentially how we address all the risks,” says Hariharan. “It’s a very stringent process,
but for the right reasons.”

5
Current engine
retrofit technologies

Engine developers are ready newbuild and retrofit engines entering service. In the case compression stages. In both cases the alternative fuel is then
of methanol, there are already newbuild engines in service ignited with a small amount of pilot fuel oil.
to deploy the first methanol and existing interest in conversion packages, meaning
In two-stroke engines, both main designers are opting
retrofit packages on a limited development could be relatively fast.
for Diesel cycle combustion for methanol and ammonia,
number of engine sizes, while For four-stroke engines, retrofit technology can be installed
even ahead of newbuild engines going into production.
which maximises fuel efficiency and offers lower emissions
– particularly a lower risk of fuel slip, an important safety
ammonia conversions are likely Both MAN and Wärtsilä are developing methanol capability consideration when dealing with toxic fuels.
first via retrofits, while Hyundai Himsen has undertaken
to begin slowly from early 2027. type approval of its methanol-fuelled four-stroke engines as Regulating the flow of fuel and air, together with control
newbuilds. Unlike for two-strokes, four-stroke engines also of auxiliary systems such as hydraulic oil for fuel injection
The ability to consume alternative fuels safely, efficiently
offer the option of being retrofitted one after the other while equipment operation, sealing oil systems and nitrogen (to
and reliably in engines is the core technology requirement
the vessel is in operation, if sufficient generating power can purge fuel lines) can all be critical elements in methanol
before vessel retrofits can be considered. In this respect,
be maintained. A shorter drydocking would still be needed and ammonia engines and accounts for a large part of
the projected availability of retrofits corresponds with the
for the wider fuel storage, fuel supply system, auxiliary the complexity around engine design. As well as nitrogen
current status of marine engine development in general;
equipment and safety systems. purging, segments of fuel lines also need to be isolatable –
engine concepts that can use methanol as fuel already
typically with master fuel valves and with double block and
exist – although they are not yet available from all engine
Engine concepts and components bleed valves – in order to switch quickly to diesel mode in
developers - while concepts that use ammonia are still in the
the event of a leak from the gaseous or low-flashpoint fuel
early development stages. There are different combustion and fuel system approaches system, isolate that fuel system and reduce the inventory of
possible and required for the combustion of either methanol the fuel leak. Double wall piping systems are typically used
Retrofit package availability
or ammonia compared to conventional fuels. Combustion for the gaseous or low-flashpoint fuel supply with dilution
When retrofit packages will be available in the specific sizes concept, ignition principle, injection pressure and valve air continuously circulated through the outer pipe of the
required for particular vessels depends on several factors. In timing are some of the key parameters that will determine double-walled piping, with gas detection of the ventilated air
the case of two-stroke engines, scaling for different engine how effectively the fuel is burned. Aside from basic engine to detect any leak from the inner fuel pipe.
sizes is not necessarily a straightforward or linear process, characteristics and air systems, one of the key design
albeit the first engine deliveries prove the concept and ability challenges are the fuel injectors that can operate at high Managing these more precise and complex systems means
to obtain the required approvals. This means that the roll out pressures, and injection and valve control systems that are that engine control system hardware and software will need
of alternative fuel capability across the full range of engine precise enough to manage the required pilot and main fuel to be adapted for methanol or ammonia engines. The alarm,
sizes typically follows actual engine orders. injections and engine valve timing. monitoring and safety systems will also need to be enhanced
to accommodate new safety measures.
Once engine concepts are established, retrofit packages The two main combustion concepts applied for DF marine
can be developed to convert engines for use with new fuels. engines using gaseous or low-flashpoint fuels are the Across the engine and fuel system, materials will need to be
This design process usually takes six months or more. In Diesel cycle, where the fuel is injected at high pressure selected that are compatible with the specific fuel type that
the case of ammonia-fuelled engines, the additional safety into the compressed air in the cylinder, and the Otto cycle, will be used. Ammonia is the more restrictive and requires
requirements for both testing and operation may extend where fuel is introduced (pre-mixed) into the air side in the typical construction materials and alloys such as copper,
this timeframe, resulting in a slightly longer lag between charge air system at low-pressure during the induction and brass, zinc, and polymer components to be reselected.
38 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current engine retrofit technologies

Common viewpoints models around using methanol and ammonia mature, and means that only younger vessels of a relatively large size
with repair yard capacity and capability in such projects are viable candidates initially. The business case is expected
While there are significant differences in how advanced each limited, it is possible that more ‘pre-operational conversions’ to widen as technology, integration capability and fuel
engine designer is with their methanol and ammonia fuelled will take place in the coming years. costs evolve.
engines, and in developing retrofit packages for them, there
are several notable factors where all technology providers The following chapter highlights development towards
meet in agreement. Namely: methanol and ammonia engine retrofit packages from some
key engine designers for both two-stroke and four-stroke
Methanol moving ahead: The technology obstacles to engines.
using methanol as fuel appear limited, with both two-stroke
and four-stroke engines already in operation for some years,
including some which have been retrofitted. Two-stroke engines
Ammonia safety gaps: Ammonia combustion research is MAN Energy Solutions
continuing and options on concepts are emerging. A more Methanol
challenging issue for engine developers is the safety aspects
of ammonia. This presents itself both in gaps in regulation, MAN Energy Solutions’ first methanol-fuelled two-stroke
with no IMO requirements in place yet and for example engines entered service in 2016 onboard a series of methanol
differing prescriptive rules for venting arrangements, and in tankers owned by Marinvest and Waterfront Shipping, and
operational aspects such as crew training and maintenance. today has 19 of the 50-bore engines in operation. They will
be joined by around more than 100 engines on order across
Integration challenges: Perhaps naturally, engine designers larger sizes, including 60-, 80- and 95-bore, for the first
noted that the biggest obstacles for uptake were not related methanol-fuelled containerships.
to the engine itself, but rather to the integration of fuel
storage and handling and auxiliary systems into the existing MAN Energy Solutions has already received orders from
vessel structure. Subsequent chapters in this report explore Maersk and Seaspan (for Hapag-Lloyd) for up to 80 retrofit
these challenges in more detail (Sections 6 and 7). packages in total on larger container vessels, and noted
further interest from owners of methanol tankers and ro-ro
NOx emissions certification: All but one engine designer vessels. The projects cover engine bore sizes including 95, 80
noted that the current requirements for certification of NOx and 50. That equates to a market of more than 800 operating
performance is a likely impediment to uptake of retrofits, by MAN engines that can already be retrofitted for methanol.
increasing the overall project cost. The issue is explored in
Section 2. Retrofit projects in these engine sizes will begin next year
and, with a project lead time of around 14 months for the
Pre-operational conversions: Two engine designers, first retrofits, MAN anticipates that many vessels will have
Wärtsilä and WinGD, are involved in projects where engines been converted in 2025. In principle, a retrofit package
will be converted for methanol fuel even before the original can be developed for all electronically controlled engines
newbuild vessel is due to enter service. This trend highlights – meaning most engines that have been delivered since
the pace of development in both engine technology and their introduction in 2003. In practice, the business case for
industry appetite for new fuel capability. As the business retrofits – which are likely to cost around US$12 million – MAN B&W ME-LGIM methanol-fuelled engine

Retrofit dual-fuel conversion Main qualification parameters • B2C market for container carriers: relatively easy to
pass on the cost to customer
market potential • Engine type ME-C
• Issue with refunding of ships on fossil fuel:
• Engine size ≥ 50 bore green funding schemes
• Parent engine test available
Bottlenecks
• Sea trial after 1 Jan 2015
4,600 ME-C 22,000 • Fuel price/availability
engines ≥ 50 two-stroke • Newbuilding price ≥50M$
bore engines • Certifications: Currently requirement for physical
• Total retrofit costs not to exceed 25% of parent engine although new low carbon fuels
newbuilding value consistently have lower NOx
3,800 engines Typical qualified vessel types • 10-15 shipyards to carry out conversions: engineering/
commercially viable naval architect competences at repair yards are low
at newbuilding price • Tankers >50,000 DWT
≥ 50M$ for LNG; • Owners' ability to make solid retrofit budgets having
35M$ Menthanol • Bulkers >160,000 DWT repair yards as subcontractors - too high risk of budget
• Containers >7,000 TEU overshoot
• PCTC >6,000 CEU • Technical organization capacity of owners

• B2B market for bulkers and tankers: relatively difficult
Drivers
pass on the cost to customer
2,500 engines with matching parent engine • GHG regulation
test in alternative fuel version • ETS credits in a fleet perspective (pooled compliance)
• Customers in container market (B2C) are focused on
lowering CO2 emissions (market pull)
MAN evaluation of initial fuel conversion candidates
To support the development of a two-stroke fuel retrofit package, there needs to be either a similar newbuild engine in
service using the same fuel, or exceptionally high market demand. This is in part due to the NOx recertification implications
under MARPOL, which may require that after conversion the engine or an identical engine is tested at steady state either in
service – a costly and often impractical exercise – or on a testbed.
With high market demand, a parent test engine could be developed specifically for validating NOx requirements, and MAN is
already starting this process for its 90-bore engines. Otherwise, two-stroke retrofit package availability will likely follow the
delivery of similar newbuild engines.

Cylinder cover elements of the ME-LGIM concept are
illustrated on the image below. Main features of the MAN
methanol concept include:
Hydraulic oil
• Fuel booster injection valves for injection of methanol
(FBIV-M) into the combustion chamber around top
dead centre
• Hydraulic control systems to control the fuel booster
valve operation
• Sealing oil supply unit mounted on the engine to
ensure that no methanol leakage occurs in the Sealing oil
moving parts of the methanol injection system to the
FBIV-M
hydraulic control system Accumulator
• Double-walled piping to distribute methanol to the
individual cylinders
• Draining and purging system for removal of methanol Gas block
from the engine
• Engine control system and safety system monitoring Methanol supply
the methanol injection and combustion; engine through bore in
cylinder cover LGI adapter block
reverts to diesel oil operation in case of alarms
• Off engine Fuel Valve Train (FVT) providing a block-
and-bleed function between the fuel supply system Double-walled pipe
and the engine methanol inlet
• Off engine automated methanol supply system with
an embedded purge system
Ammonia
MAN started its first ammonia-fuelled, one-cylinder test

engine in Copenhagen Q2 2023. A six-cylinder 60 bore Double-walled pipe
test engine will begin operating at Mitsui Engineering & methanol outlet
Shipbuilding’s facility in Japan in January 2024 and the first
ammonia-fuelled two-stroke engines are likely to enter
service in 2026.
Methanol components and pipes on MAN ME-LGIM cylinder cover

The first engine size to be made available will be the 60 bore, vessels. A steady roll-out of the technology will help to WinGD
which can be deployed in multiple vessel segments. There is identify teething issues, and to feed that experience back
also particular demand for 80 bore engines for large vessels into engine and retrofit package designs. Methanol
on bulk trades, where national policies in Australia and WinGD’s first methanol-fuelled newbuild engines, named
Japan are accelerating interest in ammonia fuel. Following The fuel injection system design will be confirmed on test
engines but is expected to be similar to the engine concept X-DF-M, are expected to enter service in 2025. The company
the same development logic as for methanol retrofits, MAN has determined that these engines will follow the Diesel-
expects to be able to deliver the first ammonia retrofits for (LGI) used for MAN’s liquid petroleum gas (LPG) fuelled
engines. MAN is simultaneously working on adapting cycle combustion principle, with high-pressure injection, as
two-stroke engines from 2027. opposed to the Otto-cycle low-pressure injection used for
selective catalytic reduction NOx abatement technology
While retrofit packages for other fuels can be developed in to handle emissions, which will be further explored on burning LNG in its existing dual-fuel X-DF engines. However,
around six months, MAN noted that retrofit development the testbed. An off-engine ammonia catcher system is retrofit packages will be made available for all existing
may initially take up to a year for ammonia. This has both also under development to reprocess fuel system purges, WinGD electronically controlled engines, covering both dual-
safety and commercial rationale: the challenges of handling effectively a closed fuel system that prevents venting of fuel LNG and single-fuelled diesel engines.
ammonia mean that many novel ship systems will be used, ammonia under normal operation. A retrofit package is likely While the first methanol engines are under development in
as well as new engine features. to include new cylinder heads and engine piping, the fuel partnership with engine builders in China and Korea, WinGD
valve train, knock-out drums and a nitrogen separator (for has already advanced a potential fuel injection concept,
MAN noted that the further roll-out of ammonia-fuelled onboard generation of nitrogen for purging and inerting).
engines and retrofits is likely to be tightly controlled until known as the Fuel Flexible Injector.
early operational experience is gathered from the first
Combustion Injection Injection Combustion System

fundamentals layout validation validation deployment
Q2 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q1
2022 2022 2023 2023 2025
Spray combustion Methanol

Piloting Hydraulic simulation First engine in
Rig testing chamber single
parameters spray simulation operation
cylinder engine
Under preparation
WinGD X-DF-M methanol engine development timeframe

This was developed as part of the pan-European HERCULES (for NOx and, if needed, N2O) and engine detail design. HSD methanol-ready X92-B engines installed and will be
2 marine engine innovation project and is designed with will provide engine testing capabilities and deliver fuel supply converted for methanol before entering service. WinGD
adaptable injection pressure for a range of liquid fuels, and exhaust aftertreatment systems, as well as giving feed- anticipates that a newbuild 82cm-bore engine will be the
including conventional fuel oils as well as alcohol fuels back on engine manufacturing and assembly costs expertise. next to enter service, with a retrofit package available shortly
including methanol and ethanol. The injector has already after. Other engine sizes will be developed based on market
been used to investigate injection, combustion and emission WinGD’s first announced order for a methanol-fuelled demand.
properties of alcohol fuels. While it will require some further newbuild engine is also for the 92cm bore size. The company
investigation before a final commercial concept is settled, will supply ten-cylinder 10X92DF-M methanol-fuelled engines Ammonia
this concept provides the basis for development. to four 16,000 TEU container vessels to be built for COSCO
Shipping Lines at COSCO Shipping Heavy Industry’s shipyard WinGD has announced concrete steps in its plans to develop
Development projects with engine builders indicate the in Yangzhou, China, with delivery from 2025. ammonia-fuelled engines, which will be known as X-DF-A. In
initial bore sizes for which methanol capability will be late 2021 it announced a timeframe for both methanol- and
available. In Korea, WinGD is working with HSD Engine on the While conversion packages can take six months or more ammonia-fuelled engines, anticipating it would finalise an
92cm bore engine, the X92-DF-M. The engine is most often to follow the introduction of a new two-stroke engine, the ammonia engine concept by 2025. In mid-2022 it signed a
deployed on large and ultra-large containerships, and the unique circumstances of WinGD’s first delivery to COSCO joint development project with Hyundai Heavy Industries
diesel-fuelled X92-B engine will be used as a base for adding Shipping Lines will mean that retrofit development will to advance X-DF-A readiness for commercialisation. And in
methanol fuel technology. As part of the development be expedited. The fourth vessel in the series will be the early 2023 it revealed another partnership, with alternative
project with HSD, WinGD will oversee combustion and first to have a newbuild X92DF-M engine installed from fuel specialist CMB.TECH, to jointly develop the first 82cm-
injection concepts, exhaust aftertreatment requirements the beginning, while the earlier vessels will initially have bore ammonia-fuelled engines.
Combustion Injection Injection Combustion System

fundamentals layout validation validation deployment
Q3 Q2 Q4 Q4 Q1
2022 2023 2023 2024 2025
Single cylinder Ammonia

Piloting Hydraulic simulation First engine in
Rig testing engine abatement
parameters spray simulation operation
technology
Already started Under preparation

WinGD X-DF-A ammonia engine development timeframe

The X82DF-A partnership is the first ammonia two-stroke stage but Wärtsilä’s intention is to eliminate changes required If high-pressure injection is needed the system can be
project with a publicly announced commercial end result; when switching from LNG to ammonia, although issues such adapted – for example running on high engine loads with
the aim is to develop engines for a series of ten 210,000 DWT as component sizing will need consideration due to the minimum pilot fuel on LNG - but will not be needed for most
bulk carriers that will be delivered in 2025 and 2026. WinGD greater volumes of ammonia that will be needed. retrofit cases. Overall, the Wärtsilä system aims to deliver a
has confirmed that a retrofit package for this engine size will simpler and quicker installation as well as lower operating
be available six months to a year after the newbuild engine is The Wärtsilä Fit4Fuels uses high-pressure injection but, costs, while maintaining the fuel efficiency associated with
completed, with further engine sizes already unlike other two-stroke concepts for methanol and ammonia, high-pressure injection engines.
under development. allows for low-pressure fuel supply. This is achieved by adding
an on-engine amplifier to reach the pressures needed for Wärtsilä will install its pilot concept on a large container
As with WinGD’s methanol-fuelled engine, the ammonia- injection. To meet safety requirements, the booster and ship vessel in early to mid-2024. The existing engine will be
capable plant will be designed with high-pressure fuel low-pressure and high-pressure pipes are contained in an converted from conventional fuel to dual-fuel LNG, with
injection, using a Diesel cycle combustion concept. enclosure which is continuously ventilated and monitored for the same engine being converted to ammonia around a
Conversions will be possible from all current WinGD engines. leakages. Some adaptation may be required depending on year after the first retrofit. A full-scale demonstration of
the final form of ammonia safety requirements. the concept as it will be installed on the pilot vessel has
Wärtsilä already taken place with the owner at Wärtsilä’s test engine
The use of on-engine fuel pressure boosting allows operators facility. In between the two conversions on the first pilot
Methanol and ammonia to save on the cost and space requirements of high-pressure vessel, a second vessel is scheduled to become the first test
Wärtsilä’s Fit4Fuels two-stroke fuel conversion is distinct from fuel supply. To further reduce running costs, the on-engine installation for the platform’s methanol capability.
other two-stroke engine retrofit solutions in two ways. First, fuel preparation processes are powered by excess energy
it is the only dedicated retrofit solution from a third-party from the engine’s servo oil and jacket cooling water systems.
supplier; Wärtsilä no longer designs two-stroke engines but
is the global service provider for all WinGD designed engines,
which includes both the Sulzer and Wärtsilä two-stroke
engine brands. It is all these engines (again, if electronically
controlled) for which the retrofit solution is applicable.
The second difference is that Wärtsilä proposes multi-fuel

optionality within the same engine retrofit concept, albeit in
stages. With relatively minor adjustments the solution can
take vessels down two fuel pathways: from conventional fuel
to LNG and then to ammonia; or from conventional fuel to
methanol or ammonia. While an LNG to methanol pathway is
technically feasible, the business case for such a route is slim,
as the complexity of cryogenic storage and fuel handling
equipment for LNG would require a relatively long payback
time, while cryogenic capability is not required for methanol.
Moving from LNG to ammonia, much of the auxiliary

technology can be retained. The concept is in the design Wärtsilä Two-Stroke Future Fuel Conversion Platform

Wärtsilä suggests that the concept results in a simpler combustion concept is easier to apply to existing engines dual-fuel engine that can operate on ammonia. The project
installation than OEM-designed retrofit packages because it and requires less costly auxiliary equipment including lower partners include the University of Munich (TUM), Neptun
does not require adjustment of some components (including pressure fuel supply. As well as allowing the solution to come Ship Design, WTZ and Woodward L’Orange. A prototype of
cylinder liners and gas admission valves) that would be to market quickly, this solution is also optimal for operations the fuel system has been installed on the test engine at WTZ
needed to convert an engine from one standard engine type where diesel will be the main fuel, as methanol’s availability Rosslau research institute, where the combustion concept
to another. The company is also working to ensure that the as a marine fuel increases. for the new engine is being developed.
rest of the fuel storage and supply system is in place with
As methanol availability and use matures, MAN plans to To date MAN has not put a timeframe on the development
multi-fuel capability, focusing initially on systems for the pilot
introduce a high-pressure direct injection concept. This will of newbuild four-stroke ammonia-fuelled engines or retrofit
installation that can handle both LNG and ammonia.
be similar to injection on its Diesel-cycle two-stroke engines, package availability.
with a fuel mix of diesel and methanol injected from separate
Wärtsilä
Four-stroke engines needles directly into the combustion chamber at the top of
the cycle. This concept will also be used for engines capable Methanol
MAN Energy Solutions
of using ammonia and hydrogen, with the different fuel
requirements meaning that development of high-pressure Wärtsilä delivered its first methanol engine conversion in
Methanol
injection will take longer than low-pressure port fuel 2015, retrofitting the ro-pax cruise ferry Stena Germanica’s
While two-stroke methanol engines will be available as injection. four Sulzer 8ZAL40S engines, an LR Classed ship. The engine
newbuild first, with retrofit packages developed later, for conversions were undertaken one at a time while the
four-stroke engines the process has largely been reversed. MAN sees demand for methanol-fuelled four-stroke engine vessel was in service, with the fuel supply system and tanks
Both MAN and Wärtsilä have started their methanol four- retrofits coming primarily from vessel applications where the adapted at drydock – a project option that the company
stroke developments with conversion solutions. In the case engine is involved in propulsion – either directly or as part says is viable for future retrofits and could save considerable
of MAN Energy Solutions, a retrofit is being developed that of a hybrid-electric power chain - including cruise, ferry and off-hire time.
will deliver a methanol-capable 51/60 (51cm engine bore, ro-ro segments. For the smaller engine bore sizes used for
auxiliary power on larger vessels, there is less of a business The company developed a retrofit package for Z40 engines
60cm stroke length) engine.
case due to the lower fuel usage and smaller engine size. based on that project, although it has yet to be deployed
The first MAN 51/60 engines capable of using methanol and, as the engine is surpassed by more modern and
will be retrofitted on a Stena ro-ro vessel and a Norwegian The small engine size used as auxiliaries on deep-sea vessels efficient variants, is likely to remain a niche option. But that
Cruise Lines cruise ship in late 2024 or early 2025. The retrofit means that retrofitting an engine for methanol would be as early retrofitting and fuel experience has fed directly into the
solution is expected to be in series production from 2026. expensive as installing a new engine, while for bigger engines design of Wärtsilä’s newest engines. The Wärtsilä 32M is its
The solution can be applied to existing diesel-fuelled 48/60 a retrofit is expected to be around 80% of the cost of a new first newbuild methanol engine, released in early 2022, and
and 51/60 engines. Covering multiple bore sizes with the engine. For auxiliary engines then, either installing new a retrofit package is available for diesel-fuelled Wärtsilä 32
same retrofit solution means that technology can reach methanol engines or running existing engines on biofuels to engines.
market faster, while also ensuring that older engines are lower emissions are more feasible options.
The cruise sector is a key target for four-stroke methanol-
upgraded to the latest, most efficient bore size.
Ammonia fuelled engines, and Wärtsilä’s latest release in the widely
MAN is planning a two-stage development for its four-stroke used 46-cm bore engine size – the Wärtsilä 46TS-DF - has
As described above, MAN is developing a high-pressure fuel
methanol technology. Initially the retrofit solution will feature been designed to facilitate future conversion to both
injection concept that will be capable of handling ammonia
a port fuel injection concept, where an injector located in methanol and ammonia fuel. Modular design enables fuel
fuel. Under the AmmoniaMot research project, which runs
the air inlet will deliver methanol into the air intake stream injection, piping and control systems to be replaced with
until the end of 2023 – MAN is developing a four-stroke,
prior to entering the combustion chamber. This low-pressure more ease than in previous models. However, it is an earlier

version of the 46cm-bore engine, the Wärtsilä 46F, that will In 2022, Wärtsilä launched one of its highest-speed engines,
become the first modern engine in Wärtsilä’s four-stroke the Wärtsilä 25, which it expects to be its first engine to be
portfolio to be converted for methanol fuel. In April, the capable of running on ammonia fuel. Built in modular fashion
company announced that it will deliver engines for the fifth to simplify conversion, like the 46TS-DF, the 25cm-bore
vessel in Celebrity Cruises’ Edge series in late 2023. Two engine also features injection timing and control concepts
eight-cylinder Wärtsilä 46F engines will be converted for that the company says will be adaptable for ammonia fuel.
methanol at Chantiers de l’Atlantique shipyard before the
newbuild vessel is delivered. Wärtsilä anticipates that the technology concept for
ammonia-fuelled four-stroke engines will be finalised this
With methanol capability for newbuild engines and retrofit year and that engines will be commercially available soon
packages already available for the 32cm- and 46cm-bore afterwards. Beyond the Wärtsilä 25, it has yet to announce
sizes, Wärtsilä will shortly release details of its plans to roll- any concrete roll-out plans featuring other engine sizes,
out methanol fuel technology across its four-stroke engine either for newbuilds or retrofit packages.
portfolio.
Wärtsilä has also developed a methanol fuel supply system,

MethanolPac. The package includes the high-pressure
methanol fuel pump unit, low-pressure pump module, fuel
valve train, bunkering stations and tank instrumentation.
MethanolPac will be installed on a wind turbine installation
vessel under construction for Dutch ship operator Van Oord,
which will be powered by the first Wärtsilä 32M in service.
Ammonia
Wärtsilä currently has two ammonia-fuelled four-stroke

test engines: one at its headquarters in Vaasa, Finland and
the other undergoing trials with customers Knutsen OAS,
Repsol Norway and Equinor at the Sustainable Energy
Catapult Centre in Stord, Norway. The company reports that
it has already proven an engine concept running on high-
proportion ammonia blends of up to 70% ammonia so far
and is currently confirming operations on pure ammonia
(plus pilot fuel).

6 Fuel system integration

Integrating an alternative Preparing vessels to use alternative fuels goes beyond
installing fuel-capable engines. Fuel storage needs to be
fuels. In some ship designs, finding additional tank space,
particularly while limiting the loss of cargo carrying capacity,
fuel system on existing adapted both to meet the volume requirements of the new is a particular design challenge. For example, one reason why
fuel as well as the safety demands of regulations and class
vessels – including engine, rules. New fuel supply systems need to be introduced and
container vessels are among the first merchant segments
to consider alternative fuels is that the void spaces between
fuel preparation and storage contained in a safe area separate from the engine room. Fuel
piping has to be modified, affecting bulkhead penetrations
the hull structure and existing fuel tanks allows for greater
flexibility in adding tank space.
tanks as well as the associated across the vessel. And new safety measures including
control and safety features - venting, ventilation and fire prevention and control need to
be applied.
holds particular challenges Finding space for this new equipment in line with the
for retrofit projects. stipulations of the IGF Code and class rules is particularly
challenging for vessels originally designed for use with other
Fuel system
Methanol Storage, processing & supply system
Fuel consumer
Bunkering station
Methanol fuel processing system

Nitrogen
supply
H/E Filter
Unit Unit
Fuel valve
L/P Fuel train Main
transfer pumps engine
H/P Fuel Master

pumps fuel valve
Methanol fuel storage tk.

Double
walled
Fuel transfer
Methanol piping Methanol
pump
service Tk. drain Tk.
Source: MAN ES, Lloyd's Register
48 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fuel system integration

Fuel storage The tank must be inerted with a nitrogen blanket to reduce A reliquefication system or other means of tank pressure
Methanol risk of flammability and corrosivity, which demands extra and boil off gas management is needed for non-pressurised
systems and safety considerations. If a nitrogen generator or ammonia tanks. "While rules for using ammonia cargo
Methanol is liquid at ambient temperatures and can be storage facilities are installed outside of the engine room, the as fuel have yet to be developed, under the International
stored in tanks made from stainless steel, or mild steel compartment must be fitted with a low oxygen alarm and Code of the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying
coated with zinc silicate. This means that fuel tanks on independent mechanical ventilation. Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code), two independent boil-off
existing vessels can be used if thoroughly cleaned and management means are needed, requiring a reliquefaction
coated, provided they meet IGF Code requirements on tank Ammonia system with at least one ammonia consumer (boiler or
location. Protective cofferdams are required around the auxiliary engines) or two separate reliquefaction systems.
Ammonia can be stored as a liquid either by refrigeration
methanol tank, except for areas below the lowest possible However the IGC Code would first need to be amended, as
below -33°C or under pressure in insulated structural tanks.
water line. use of ammonia cargo as fuel is currently prohibited."
Depending on the type of tank chosen, the secondary barrier,
where required, must include additional features such as a
pressure release system or drip trays with a leak detection
and purging system. For integrated, membrane tanks, the
ship supporting structure may act as a secondary barrier
Ammonia and insulating foam must be dense enough to accommodate
Onboard arrangements high sloshing loads.
Bunkering station Knockout drums
Vapour line Liquid line NH3 fuel return system Machinery space
FVT
(return)
NH3 fuel
service tank Master Double
fuel walled
valve piping
H/E unit
NH3 fuel NH3 fuel FVT
storage tk. storage tk. Filter unit Main
(supply)
engine
H/P Fuel pumps

NH3 fuel processing system NH3 fuel supply system
L/P fuel transfer pumps

Key considerations for conversions: Key considerations for conversions: Fire detection, prevention and control
• Finding an appropriate location for new fuel tanks • Fuel preparation room needs to be sized based on Vessels should be split into zones where gases are handled
that meets regulatory requirements on distance from selection of fuel supply system components. according to the IGF code, with explosion-proof equipment
side shell plating - and allows space for cofferdams, used in the appropriate zones. Gas detectors are required in
• An airlock is required between fuel consumers and
insulation, venting and reliquefaction systems – is the many locations including fuel preparation rooms, double-
fuel preparation. Availability of suitable location close
main challenge for alternative fuel retrofits. walled pipes, air locks and cofferdams.
to the engine room to minimise pipe routing that could
• Assessing the impact of fuel storage requirements disrupt ship structural elements may be difficult to
Spaces containing fuel preparation equipment are classified
on vessel endurance and minimising loss of cargo find on some existing vessels.
as Category A machinery spaces under SOLAS Reg II-2/9
capacity requires extensive ship design work.
• Fuel preparation equipment needs to be purged with specific insulation and fire extinguishing requirements.
• The size and location of fuel tanks has an impact on and vented during fuel switching. These requirements Bunker stations, fuel preparation rooms and pump rooms
the vessel stability and may impose limitations to and associated piping can also challenge existing near fuel tanks should be sprayable with water for ammonia
loading conditions. Stability checks must be made ship configurations. or foam for methanol. Fixed firefighting systems should also
with various tank and loading conditions to ensure be installed in the fuel preparation room. For methanol, a
Fuel piping
stability is maintained. To ensure longitudinal foam extinguishing system is required for the tank top and
strength, the hogging moment in alternative loading For both methanol and ammonia, fuel pipes beyond the fuel underfloor bilge area.
conditions should be studied. preparation room in enclosed spaces must be double walled.
Further measures are needed for ammonia, potentially
• Converting existing fuel tanks for methanol will Key considerations for conversions: including water curtains or spray systems. These may be
need cleaning and surface preparation before needed in and around the fuel preparation room, bunker
coating, with particular attention to any internal • Complexity of pipe routing through existing ship station, tank connection spaces and accommodation block.
supporting structures. structure and machinery space.
Fuel preparation room • Diameter of piping and additional space for pipe
layout if using existing piping or piping routes, to
Fuel pumps, fuel valve trains, heat exchangers and filters account for larger volume requirements of methanol
are contained in a fuel preparation room separate from and ammonia.
the engine room. Fuel preparation room designs need to
incorporate measures to minimise risk of exposure to leaks, Ventilation, venting and purging
including escape routes, internal separations, ventilation and
Ventilation from tank spaces and fuel preparation rooms should
leak containment measures including water curtain or spray
be designed to avoid exposure to crew outside those areas.
systems.
For ammonia, accommodation ventilation also needs to be
Multiple methanol fuel supply systems are already
designed to minimise gas ingress. Gas detectors are needed
commercially available while ammonia fuel supply systems
at air inlets with an automated ventilation system to enable
are under development, and some have reached Approval
maximum recirculation if gas is detected.
in Principle.
Vent masts should be appropriately zoned and located away
from accommodation and air intakes.

7 Retrofit capacity and capability

The complexity of vessel complex regulation of the fuel chain place new demands
on vessel electrical and automation infrastructure. This
Retrofit project timeframe
conversions means that only will require greater electrical engineering skills from yards Ship designers and OEMs indicate that a retrofit project
is likely to take around two months, depending on size of
in order to adapt or where necessary install entirely new
limited numbers of repair yards systems. the vessel, the scope of changes required and the level of
preparation (such as prefabrication of equipment) that can
may initially be able to carry Fuel handling: Especially during the commissioning and be achieved. This can be broken down into several stages:
out such projects. Scaling up testing stages of the retrofit project, yards will need to have
• Removal of existing fuel system components –
the capacity to handle alternative fuels. Given the limited
expertise will be crucial to number of existing alternative fuelled vessels in operation including installing new tanks or modifying
existing tanks
meeting demand. and their relative recent introduction – limiting repair yards’
exposure to these vessels – this places a constraint on • Modification of retained elements such as welding
Fuel retrofits are more complex than most projects the number of repair yards currently capable of handling and drilling for pipe support
undertaken by repair yards. Converting the engine itself is a these projects.
• Assembling and installing new components
relatively straightforward process of installing prefabricated
These requirements mean that several OEMs and designers including engine package and fuel supply
engine components.
expect only a very limited pool of repair yards initially • Electrical wiring
Introducing these elements to an existing ship, designed capable of fuel conversions. One key indicator of capability
with an entirely different fuel use in mind, requires skills that is the type of work the repair yard has previously conducted. • Commissioning and testing
cannot always be taken for granted at repair yards, where the Those with experience in complex offshore projects, • Sea trial
focus has traditionally been on restoring vessels based on an for example, would likely have the design and electrical
original design. engineering skills needed. Those that have undertaken
conversions of vessels to floating production and storage However, ship owners planning a retrofit project will need
Required capabilities
facilities including FSRUs and FPSOs would have similar to factor in much longer lead times to account for yard
The need for specialist skills in fuel retrofits places an capabilities. availability. A full retrofit project plan – from feasibility to
inherent restraint on the industry’s ability to meet the adoption – is described in the chart below. Following an
Another limiting factor is the availability of a skilled
emerging demand for applying alternative fuels to existing initial feasibility process, including initial design, a detailed
workforce. While some designers suggested that yards that
vessels. Ship designers interviewed by Lloyd’s Register design and engineering process could reasonably be
lacked expertise in certain areas – welding stainless steel
highlighted three essential areas: expected to take up to five months before beginning the
for example – could simply hire in new teams, this could be
difficult. One designer noted: conversion at the yard.
Naval architecture: The design and location of system
elements including tanks, fuel preparation rooms and The project timeframe below indicates the major milestones
“The green transition is happening everywhere,
piping needs careful consideration to comply with safety in terms of design approval that need to be achieved at
not just in maritime. Everybody wants our
requirements, particularly the need for venting and each stage.
mechanical engineers.”
hazardous zones. Assessing the impact of each part on the
vessel’s structural strength and stability is also critical.
Electrical engineering: Enhanced monitoring (leak and

fire detection), automated mitigation systems (including
purging, firefighting, venting and ventilation), as well as more
52 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Retrofit capacity and capability

Retrofit Timeline
Feasibility (6-12 months)
Certifications and approvals Description

• RBC-1 • Owner / Operator identifies conversion option based on technology, fuel, • Approvals in Principle for system / equipment / component designs can be issued,
• Preliminary appraisal of rules commercial and operational considerations. provisional on RBC process completion.
• Approvals on principle (Optional) • Initial Design and Safety Statement drafted by owner and appraised by class; report
issued and areas for further investigation identified (RBC-1).
Design & Engineering (5 months)

• RBC-2 • Detailed design approval • Risk assessments, HAZID and further studies conducted to finalise initial designs (RBC- • Detailed designs sent to class technical support office for plan approval before use
• RBC-3 • Plan approval 2 & RBC-3), perform HAZOP (RBC-4) and complete safety action recommendations. of equipment and component fabricators.
• RBC-4 •E
quipment / component certification • Consultation with flag state begins to address certification requirements. • Equipment component certification begins - confirming the equipment to be
• Approvals in Principle for system / equipment / component designs can be issued, installed is built in accordance with designs.
• Approvals on principle (Optional)
after approval of RBC -2 deliverables. • Time allowed for delivery of pre-fabricated equipment /components to conversion site.
Conversion (2 months)

• RBC-5 • Conversion begins on completion of Construction, Installation, and Commissioning • Site survey: project manager assesses scope of retrofit (based on engineering
• Site survey Assessment (RBC - 5a). designs, manufacturing certificates and installation plan) and certifies that
• Equipment / components being built on-site are surveyed and certified. installation has taken place according to design.
• A ssessment for the Development of In-Service Documentation (RBC-5b) to be
completed before adoption.
Adoption (1 week)

• Flag approval • Class and flag certification completed following successful commissioning and sea trial.
• Class approval

Scoping yard conversion capacity Required yard capacity for fuel conversions
(No. Repairs x No. Days)
Based on the above criteria, LR has identified a group
of around 15 yards capable of handling alternative fuel 100 Required Capacity
retrofits. Allowing a 60-day conversion period, these yards Estimated
could be capable of handling up to 308 conversions in total 80 (No. Repairs x No. Days)
each year. Comparing this against the number of potential
retrofit candidates for methanol and ammonia, it is clear that Average utilisation
60
capacity would need to be increased dramatically to fulfil per year, fuel-handling
Millions
potential demand as interest in conversions increases. capable only
40 (No. Repairs x No. Days)
Another factor for consideration in understanding capacity
for retrofit projects is slot availability in repair yards. Repair 20
capacity is already constrained and adding fuel retrofits will Max. utilisation per
year, fuel-handling
place further pressure on slots, potentially resulting in longer
0 capable only
lead times and/or higher conversion costs. 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 (No. Repairs x No. Days)
It should be noted that this scoping of retrofit capability

does not consider other constraints on the supply chain.
For example, engine builders will need to balance the
demand for newbuild engines with the growing demand for
engine retrofit packages. If demand for newbuild engines is
particularly high, this could lead to longer lead times for them
to supply the required components for retrofits.

8 Training and Human Factors

For retrofitted vessels, ensuring design safeguards, including engineering and administrative
controls, can be put in place to reduce risk potentials to
that crew are trained, and appropriate levels.
human factor risks mitigated An inexhaustive list of areas that will need to be considered
before a vessel is converted for human factor risks includes:
will be a key challenge for • Ergonomics: Ensuring the design of a vessel and its
components address the intended users’ capabilities
owners and operators. and limitations given the operating circumstances and
conditions.
At the early stage of alternative fuel use, the industry needs
to ensure that the right frameworks are in place for crew • Roles and responsibilities: Demonstrating that
skills and other factors affecting their health, safety and responsibilities of crew are clearly defined and that
working conditions. personnel can safely perform activities with the
resources provided.
While design of alternatively fuelled vessels aims to
minimise risk to crew, there are many other elements that • Competency and training: Crew have appropriate
ship operators will need to consider. Crew will need to be training for the relevant fuel, any new technologies
adequately trained in new systems, fuel handling and safety and existing skills with heightened relevance, such
precautions. A wide range of factors will also need to be as maintaining situation awareness and recognizing
assessed to ensure that new working environments and potential hazards.
practices do not adversely impact crew, for example by • Resourcing: Enough crew are available to safely
increasing risk of stress, fatigue or physical injury. perform activities such as navigating, mooring, ship
integrity and emergency response.
Unless processes are well established and crew already
available prior to switching a vessel to new fuels, this • Procedures and processes: How should control
will add cost and time to a conversion and will need to be processes be developed to address the criticality of the
factored into planning. risk, and how is delivery managed to promote adherence
from the crew.
Human Factors
• Occupational health: Consideration of risks inherent
According to the UK Health & Safety Executive, “human with fuels and new systems, and how these can be
factors refer to environmental, organisational and job mitigated via design, procedure and personal protection
factors, and human and individual characteristics, which equipment.
influence behaviour at work in a way which can affect health
• Process safety hazards: How to manage, and promote
and safety”. Due to the novel properties that alternative
early recognition and response to, new circumstances
fuels present and the changes to environment, organisation
where human activities may contribute to, exacerbate or
and job roles that their use will demand, it is critical that
prevent recovery from a hazard.
the various risks including those associated with human
factors are understood so that appropriate operational and
56 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Training and Human Factors

Assessing human factors - ammonia
Human Factors Considerations
Lloyd’s Register Maritime Decarbonisation Hub (LRMDH)
and the Maersk McKinney Moeller (MMM) Zero Carbon Stages Description Impact on crew
Shipping Centre commissioned Lloyd’s Register’s Human
Factors advisory department to assist with the identification • New ammonia specific policies, procedures or
of human factors considerations related to the use of processes
ammonia as fuel for reference designs of tanker, container
• Changes or modifications to operational and
and bulk carrier vessels. The work package included safety Process and Documented processes maintenance work practices, procedures and plans
critical risk analysis, identifying key factors that contribute Procedures and work practices
to performance and potential errors around bunkering, • Increase in requirements for risk assessment and
fuel preparation, maintenance and evacuation scenarios. employment of formal safe work practices
A working environment health risk assessment examined • Changes to emergency response processes
vessel designs to identify the potential impact of noise,
vibration, illumination, musculoskeletal stressors and • Toxicity
exposure to chemicals or harmful substances. Finally, a Exposure to toxicity, fire, • Materials / substance exposure
competency needs analysis identified key areas of upskilling Occupational Health
noise, musculoskeletal
based upon a high-level concept of the new vessel operation. Hazards • Manual handling
risks, trips and falls etc.
• Ergonomics
The results point to the need to apply human factors
engineering principles such as ergonomics within vessel • Changes to tank and system temperature and
design, as well ensuring enhancements to safety (and pressure management
environmental) management systems and approach.
Procedures must outline any new or modified planning, • New skills related to ammonia leak detection,
Human involvement in the isolation and repair
communication, competency / training and emergency
Process Safety contribution, exacerbation
response requirements. Other areas where modification • New explosivity and flammability conditions
Hazards and recovery of a
would be needed include managing changes to operational
major accident • Corrosivity potential
and maintenance procedures, personnel-related matters
including roles, responsibilities, staffing and interfaces with • Updates to chemical management
other organisations.
• New precautions with metals and materials
The table below highlights considerations in three areas
that were assessed as having a high impact on crew health
and safety.

As an example of the impact of alternative fuels on workplace The study examined three codes related to seafarer training
safety beyond the inherent properties of the fuels, the – the IMO’s STCW and International Management Code for
bunkering process could add ergonomic risk. In the case of the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (ISM
ammonia bunkering, the project above assumed that bunker Code) and the ILO’s Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) – and
lines would be raised and fitted using lifting appliance / made recommendations on areas to accelerate readiness for
cranes but assisted locally by bunker team members. The using alternative fuels.
ammonia lines connection was assumed to be quick-release
system with relatively heavy, rigid hoses. The location and The core training scheme for seafarers, STCW, is currently
design of vessel bunker station would need to consider undergoing an extensive review and onboard usage of
access of personnel and safe methods of working to assist alternative fuels is identified as one of the areas which
with this process as opportunity for a range of occupational is to be reviewed under this comprehensive review. This
health hazards. revision is likely to bring the Convention and Code up to date
with developments regarding alternative fuels and latest
Maintenance tasks are one example of an area where new technologies by 2028.
regimes or modified practices would be required. The
incompatibility of ammonia with some metals and materials For ships falling under the IGF Code, amendments to the
will need to be considered and reflected in the maintenance STCW by MSC.396(95) and MSC.397(95), adopted at the same
system and supply chain processes to ensure inappropriate time as the IGF Code, prescribe the required training under
substitutions are not allowed where ammonia could have STCW. For those required to have advanced training this
negative impacts. Ammonia work may also require the use of includes requirements on seagoing service and undertaking
new tools and techniques, which relevant personnel would bunkering operations on IGF Code ships. This can be a
need to be aware of and proficient in. challenge for the early adopters where availability of ships
and training facilities may be an issue.
Alternative fuels training
MTF has identified some gaps in relation to alternative
The IMO Maritime Safety Committee has adopted fuels and STCW which can be summarised as regulatory
amendments to the International Convention on Standards uncertainty, insufficiencies within model courses, lack of
of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers training course development due to regulatory and market
(STCW) to include new mandatory minimum requirements based uncertainties and inconsistent implementation
for the training and qualifications of masters, officers, ratings of training.
and other personnel on ships subject to the IGF Code.
However, training for fuels beyond LNG are at a very early The emerging theme is of a circularity in the factors affecting
stage of development. training availability. Training providers have to invest to
develop courses, but have little incentive to do so while it
As part of the Maritime Technologies Forum (MTF) initiative is not clear that there is demand for a course. That clarity
Lloyd’s Register recently led a project aiming to identify gaps depends on industry uptake of the fuel, although ideally
in industry training frameworks for safe use of alternative courses would be available before that point to ensure safe
fuels: ‘Operational Management to Accelerate Safe Maritime handling from the first operations.
Decarbonization’10.

Meanwhile industry uptake depends to a certain extent on • Uncertainty related to Safety Management System The full MTF report can be downloaded here:
training availability, as well as myriad other factors including requirements development and implementation.
https://www.maritimetechnologiesforum.com/
clear regulations, fuel availability, bunkering infrastructure • Uncertainty related to emergency procedure documents/report-2023-04-20-MTF-operational-
and technology readiness. development. management.pdf
To advance the availability of training for alternative fuel • Uncertainty related to maintenance activities.
use, and thus to potentially accelerate uptake, the project
• Lack of familiarity of risks, hazards and control
proposes that course providers are initially funded to
measures in terms of alternative fuels.
develop alternative fuel syllabuses. This could be achieved
through industry or regional mechanisms and would remove
an element of risk from those investing in writing training Summary of identified key gaps and recommendations for closing:
courses.
Gap Recommendation for closing
The ISM Code is an international standard that is intended to
ensure the safe operation of ships, to prevent human injury Uncertainty related to Safety Management
ISM-1 The development of a guidance document which can be produced
and loss of life at sea, and protection of the environment. It System requirements development and
by industry and submitted to the IMO.
implementation.
already has the framework for safe handling of hazardous
fuels from the perspective of safety and pollution prevention ISM-2 Uncertainty related to emergency IMO may require industry stakeholders to develop a list of
provided that the equipment for handling, processing and procedure development. emergency scenarios, drills and associated guidance.
storage of such fuels is certified as meeting all classification IMO may need to define, potentially based on industry proposals,
ISM-3 Uncertainty related to maintenance
and statutory requirements when installed, the following measures.
and mandate the inclusion of measures to address maintenance of
Safety Management System (SMS) enhancements/mitigating alternate fuel systems within the Safety Management System.
measures should be implemented: Lack of familiarity of risks, hazards and All relevant industry stakeholders may need to identify training
ISM-4
control measures. needs, develop training materials and provide training.
1 An additional risk assessment carried out by the
company must identify and assess all reasonably STCW-1 Industry guidelines for model courses may be developed to
Regulatory uncertainty.
encourage and support swift regulatory change.
foreseeable hazards posed by these fuels.
STCW-2 Incentivise relevant industry stakeholders to collaborate with
2 Crew must be certified as per national and Insufficiencies with model courses.
training providers.
international requirements.
STCW-3 Lack of incentives for training course Public and private funding may be provided to training course
3 Internal audits and periodic reviews should be developers. developers.
carried out to confirm that the crew is adequately Flag states could review the training materials and audit the
trained and familiar with the SMS procedures for STCW-4 Inconsistent implementation of training. training providers to ensure consistent delivery in line with IMO
handling alternative fuels and that the SMS has been model courses.
implemented effectively. Reference to alternative fuels could be made in part B of the Code
MLC-1 Lack of reference to alternative fuels.
and international guidelines.
MTF has identified some gaps in relation to alternative
fuels and ISM Code’s implementation which can be
summarised as: Note: Numbering above indicates perceived urgency to close the identified gaps.

9
Investment case
and economic feasibility

Fuel availability, retrofit cost retrofit engine projects have also been confirmed by WinGD,
although they will be destined for new vessels, with diesel
Cruise vessels
and carbon pricing will play key engines installed and then converted to methanol engines Interest in methanol retrofitting is emerging rapidly in the
cruise sector; in one notable example, Norwegian Cruise
before the vessels enter service.
roles in determining the viability Lines announced to investors that it has added US$1.2 billion
Beyond these initial orders, there are a substantial number to the contract cost of building four vessels due for delivery
of engine conversions. In some of owners seeking quotes from OEMs on up to 100 potential in 2027 and 2028 in order to add methanol capability. The
segments they are already retrofit candidates, at time of publication. One large tonnage first modern methanol-fuelled cruise vessels will feature
owner confirmed that methanol – both from newbuild and as engines modified for the fuel, evidencing the capability for
becoming a feasible prospect. retrofit – was likely to be among a menu of decarbonisation future retrofits. This places methanol retrofits for cruise
options offered to its charter customers. The same owner vessels at IRL 2.
Assessing investment readiness noted that ammonia retrofits, at this time, were unlikely to be
(to view summary table go to Appendix) on the same menu.
Cruise retrofit type IRL
To assess the current business attractiveness of fuel
Methanol 2
conversions across selected deep-sea vessel segments
– cruise, container, bulk carrier and tanker – LR analysed Container retrofit type IRL Ammonia 1
market structure and orderbook developments to derive the
Methanol 2
Investment Readiness Level (IRL). This grades investment
readiness on a six-point scale as detailed below. Ammonia The case for ammonia retrofitting of cruise vessels is
1
challenging due to the toxic nature of the fuel and the risk of
While a retrofitted methanol-fuelled container ship has public exposure both onboard and at city-centre ports. With
IRL Level description
yet to enter service, the considerable volume of interest no confirmed orders and very little market interest to date,
1 Hypothetical commercial proposition at a commercial stage indicates that the business case the low investment attractiveness of ammonia conversions
for methanol retrofits has gone beyond a hypothetical for cruise vessels is represented in a rating of IRL 1.
2 Commercial trial, small scale proposition, placing it at IRL 2.
Bulk carriers
3 Commercial scale up The case for an ammonia retrofit market in the container
sector has yet to emerge. Although there are 87 ammonia- The bulk carrier market faces some structural challenges
4 Multiple commercial applications in uptake of alternative fuels that narrow the business case
ready vessels in service and on order – primarily LNG-fuelled
vessels where cryogenic fuel handling makes conversion compared to other segments. As the majority of vessels
Market competition; Driving widespread are relatively simple ships, any additional capex must
5 to ammonia technically feasible in principle – there are no
development be considered carefully. Traditionally uptake of energy
vessels yet confirmed as entering service using ammonia,
6 Bankable asset class or with ammonia conversions planned. This places the efficiency solutions has been very low as a result, and a cast-
ammonia retrofit proposition at IRL 1. iron justification (such as a definitive regulatory driver or
Container vessels market-based measure) will be needed for extra expenditure.
The container segment is the first part of the merchant fleet Bulkers’ exposure to the ad hoc, tramp shipping market, as
beyond methanol tankers to welcome methanol-fuelled well as the range of ports that the ships need to be able to
vessels, driven by orders from Maersk, COSCO and CMA CGM. reach in order to work in these markets, also means that
A total of 76 vessels are on order as of May 2023. The first flexibility is critical. Owners are therefore unlikely to be
61 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Investment case and economic feasibility

keen to invest in fuels which could have limited availability in methanol among operators of large vessel sizes such as The following scenarios were modelled. The high-cost
initially, due to the restrictions this might place on their Aframax and LR tankers, but little interest in ammonia. This scenario is similar to fuel prices as anticipated to the end
operating area. may be due to the shorter lifespan of tankers compared of the decade, with a carbon tax somewhat higher than
to other segments, owing to the requirements of the large today’s EU ETS value. The low-cost scenario features fuel
charterers that dominate the market. Alternative fuel uptake costs and a carbon price that could realistically be expected
will likely be driven by the requirements of these charterers. to be achieved only close to 2050. In this way the scenarios
Bulk carrier
IRL To date limited uptake at newbuild stage translates to even represent a sliding scale of costs and can be used to indicate
retrofit type
less interest in retrofitting, meaning that both ammonia and when a move to alternative fuels is feasible.
Methanol 1 methanol conversions for tankers have yet to establish a
business case and remain at IRL 1. This simple techno-economic model makes omissions
Ammonia 1 and assumptions which would need to be accounted for in
Techno-economic scenarios any real-life techno-economic study. Both ammonia and
There are however early signs that bulk carrier operators methanol are treated as having zero exposure to carbon
are starting to move towards alternative fuels as Fuel costs taxes, which will not necessarily be the case under FuelEU
decarbonisation signals become stronger. Three methanol- Maritime, for example. Pilot fuel needed for dual-fuel engines,
capable bulk carriers have been ordered and a handful of To shed light on how the retrofitting for alternative fuels
which could be fossil-based and represent around 5% of fuel
projects are being investigated at feasibility study stage. could affect the costs of owners and operators – and the
use, has also been excluded. So too has the potential cost of
Orders for ammonia-fuelled bulk carriers are also emerging, impact of timing on post-retrofit costs - LR conducted a
taxes on other greenhouse gas emissions, such as N2O. See
likely due to the growing prospect of ammonia availability simple techno-economic analysis. The following basic
end note for details of further assumptions11.
for some key long-term trades. However, as retrofitting operating profiles were considered:
interest has yet to emerge for either fuel, both ammonia and
methanol conversions for bulk carriers remain at IRL 1. High-cost Low-cost
scenario scenario
Tankers Daily fuel
Sailing days
consumption VLSFO (USD/mt) 620 620
per year
The tanker market is divided into several sub-segments, (tonnes)
each of which have varying dynamics that influence the likely Methanol (USD/mt) 1222 757
uptake of alternative fuels. Tankers designed to carry either Ultra Large
280 200 Ammonia (USD/mt) 1200 655
methanol or ammonia are the most likely candidates to also Container Ship
be fuelled by their cargoes, and several methanol-fuelled Newcastlemax Carbon Tax
275 53 100 350
methanol carriers are already in service. LPG tankers could Bulk Carrier (USD/mt/CO2)
also conceivably be powered by ammonia engines, while
Very Large Crude
other cargoes could have synergies with methanol as a fuel. 264 80
Carrier The results of this modelling indicate that using renewable
180,000 GT methanol or ammonia today – the high-cost scenario - would
264 280 more than double the fuel costs for vessels in all segments,
Tanker retrofit type IRL Cruise Vessel
factoring in a global carbon tax level of US$100 per tonne.
Methanol 1 For vessels with greater fuel consumption – notably the large
cruise and container ships - the additional fuel costs in a year
Ammonia
Beyond 1
these niche cases, there is growing initial interest approach the price of a conventional newbuild vessel.

This scenario, which most accurately reflects today’s market,
highlights the challenges facing operators considering a ULCS, high-cost scenario ULCS, low-cost scenario
switch to alternative fuels, whether on existing or newbuild VLSFO Methanol Ammonia VLSFO Methanol Ammonia
vessels. Carbon pricing, which at US$100 more than doubles Fuel consumption (mt) 56,000.00 117,065.33 125,247.31 Fuel consumption (mt) 56,000.00 117,065.33 125,247.31
the fuel bill of ship operators using conventional fuels, Fuel cost (USD) Fuel cost (USD)
34,720,000.00 143,053,829.15 150,296,774.19 34,720,000.00 88,618,452.26 82,036,989.25
would need to reach much higher levels for alternative Emitted CO2 (mt) Emitted CO2 (mt)
174,384.00 - 174,384.00 - -
fuels to be viable. Carbon tax (USD) 17,438,400.00 Carbon tax (USD)
- - 61,034,400.00 - -
The cost of renewable fuels would also need to drop (or the Total cost (USD) 52,158,400.00 143,053,829.15 150,296,774.19 Total cost (USD) 95,754,400.00 88,618,452.26 82,036,989.25
cost VLSFO increase) dramatically. The low-cost scenario, Premium v VLSFO (USD) 90,895,429.15 98,138,374.19 Premium v VLSFO (USD) (7,135,947.74) (13,717,410.75)
in which both ammonia and methanol decrease in price by

Newcastlemax, high-cost scenario Newcastlemax, low-cost scenario
close to 50% and the carbon price reaches an extremely high
US$350, is just beyond the tipping point at which alternative VLSFO Methanol Ammonia VLSFO Methanol Ammonia
fuels become cheaper than continued use of conventional Fuel consumption (mt) 14,575.00 30,468.34 32,597.85 Fuel consumption (mt) 14,575.00 30,468.34 32,597.85
fuels. The main dynamic for owners to consider before Fuel cost (USD) 9,036,500.00 37,232,313.57 39,117,419.35 Fuel cost (USD) 9,036,500.00 23,064,534.67 21,351,591.40
investing is when this tipping point will be reached. Emitted CO2 (mt) 45,386.55 Emitted CO2 (mt) 45,386.55
Carbon tax (USD) 4,538,655.00 - Carbon tax (USD) 15,885,292.50
One element for consideration is how the use of alternative
Total cost (USD) 13,575,155.00 37,232,313.57 39,117,419.35 Total cost (USD) 24,921,792.50 23,064,534.67 21,351,591.40
fuels will affect the fuel supply business model across the
Premium v VLSFO (USD) 23,657,158.57 25,542,264.35 Premium v VLSFO (USD) (1,857,257.83) (3,570,201.10)
industry. To reduce costs, operators will need to secure
alternative fuel supply at very favourable prices. This is most VLCC, high-cost scenario VLCC, low-cost scenario
likely achievable through long-term supply agreements or
business partnerships. Several fuel supply agreements of this VLSFO Methanol Ammonia VLSFO Methanol Ammonia
sort have already been announced for both methanol and Fuel consumption (mt) 21,120.00 44,150.35 47,236.13 Fuel consumption (mt) 21,120.00 44,150.35 47,236.13
ammonia, while initiatives such as Green Corridors could also Fuel cost (USD) 13,094,400.00 53,951,729.85 56,683,354.84 Fuel cost (USD) 13,094,400.00 33,421,816.28 30,939,664.52
help secure sustainable fuel supply between partner ship Emitted CO2 (mt) 65,767.68 Emitted CO2 (mt) 65,767.68
operators and fuel producers. Carbon tax (USD) 6,576,768.00 Carbon tax (USD) 23,018,688.00
Cruise, high-cost scenario Cruise, low-cost scenario

VLSFO Methanol Ammonia VLSFO Methanol Ammonia
Fuel consumption (mt) 73,920.00 154,526.23 165,326.45 Fuel consumption (mt) 73,920.00 154,526.23 165,326.45
Fuel cost (USD) 45,830,400.00 188,831,054.47 198,391,741.94 Fuel cost (USD) 45,830,400.00 116,976,356.98 108,288,825.81
Emitted CO2 (mt) 230,186.88 Emitted CO2 (mt) 230,186.88
Carbon tax (USD) 23,018,688.00 Carbon tax (USD) 80,565,408.00

Retrofit cost and charter rates The example below shows that an owner of a Newcastlemax
vessel would need to charge an 11% premium on current
Impact on fuel costs is just one element to be considered charter rates (at time of publication) to amortise the cost of a
before retrofitting. In many cases, such as vessels operated US$10 million retrofit over ten years, even without factoring
under time charters, the fuel bill and the capital cost are in inflation or any requirement for increaed profit margin on
borne by separate parties in shipping. For owners investing alternative fuelled vessels. This amounts to an extra US$1
in a vessel conversion, understanding the charter premium million a year on the charter cost for the operator, on top
their vessels can command will be another essential of the cost of the new fuel. This would cut deeply into
consideration. Conversely for charterers, understanding the roughly US$2-3.5 million saving an operator could
what rates owners will charge for their converted vessels will make under the low-cost scenario for Newcastlemax
need to be factored alongside the cost of alternative fuels. vessels above.
The minimum charter premium an owner will need to ask for
is dependent on retrofit costs. Given the relative immaturity
Vessel TC Rate (USD/day) 26,500.00
of both methanol and ammonia engine technology, let
alone retrofits, these costs remain relatively uncertain. Annual Working Days 344
For newbuild methanol vessels, there is limited evidence
pointing to the fact that engines will cost similar to dual-fuel Retrofit Cost (USD) 10,000,000.00
LNG equivalents. However fuel storage and fuel handling
TC Duration (years) 10
equipment will cost less, as methanol does not require
cryogenic storage. For ammonia, which requires as yet TC Premium (USD/day) 2,906.98
un-commercialised engine technology, fuel storage and
handling, and additional safety technology, overall costs will TC Premium (%) 11%
be significantly higher.
According to the European Maritime Safety Authority

publication Ammonia as a Marine Fuel12, “the total cost
for retrofitting to an ammonia-fuelled ship, equipped
with a 10-16 MW 2 stroke engine will be USD 10m-13m,
depending on the type and size of the vessel, original
engine and especially the number of retrofits being
undertaken.”

References emerge

from IMO or other countries and regions. The
carbon tax value should be taken to represent the carbon
1
ISWG-GHG 13/3 cost faced by operators globally, although in reality they are
2
MEPC 79/INF.29 likely to face a range of regional and international regimes.
3
See NASA definition, https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/ Alternative fuel volumes: The different volumetric energy
heo/scan/engineering/technology/technology_readiness_ densities of VLSFO, ammonia and methanol need to be
level considered when making comparisons, as lower energy
density means greater bunker volumes are needed. More
4
https://www.lr.org/en/marine-shipping/maritime- than twice as much fuel will need to be bunkered for
decarbonisation-hub/zcfm/ methanol and ammonia as for VLSFO to bring the same
5
MSC.391(95), International Code of Safety for Ships using amount of energy onboard. The following lower calorific
Gases or other Low-flashpoint Fuels values (LCV) were used:
6
MSC.1/Circ.1212, Guidelines on Alternative Design and VLSFO: 0.0416 MJ/g
Arrangements for SOLAS Chapters II-1 and III (2006)
Methanol: 0.0199 MJ/g
7
MSC.1/Circ.1621, Interim guidelines for the safety of ships
using methyl/ethyl alcohol as fuel
Ammonia: 0.0186 MJ/g
8
Lloyd’s Register Rules and Regulations for the Classification
of Ships using Gases or other Low-flashpoint Fuels, July Greenhouse gas intensity: Under the FuelEU Maritime
2022 Directive and the EU ETS, renewable fuels are allocated
an emissions intensity factor that indicates the amount of
9
https://www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/introduction.htm carbon for which emitters will be charged. For ammonia,
which contains no carbon, this is zero. For methanol, the
Operational Management to Accelerate Safe Maritime
10
value is calculated based on a methodology that includes
Decarbonization, Maritime Technologies Forum, April 2023
considering production process, feedstocks and supply
Notes on fuel cost model assumptions:
11 chain emissions. These are close to zero for fully renewable
e-methanol and are considered zero here. For VLSFO, a
Alternative fuel costs: The fuel cost for renewable methanol standard GHG intensity factor of 3.114 gCO2/gFuel is used.
and ammonia were taken from the LR/UMAS Techno-
European Maritime Safety Agency (2022), Update
12
economic assessment of zero carbon fuels, March 2020.
on potential of biofuels in shipping, EMSA, Lisbon:
https://www.emsa.europa.eu/publications/
Carbon pricing: Under EU’s ETS scheme the carbon price

download/7322/4833/23.html
reached €100 per tonne of CO2 emitted in early 2023 and is
expected to continue to rise. This will be supplemented by
further carbon pricing exposure including FuelEU Maritime
penalties and any other market-based measures that may
65 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 1

Investment, Community and Technology readiness levels by fuel and sector IRL/CRL/TRL
TRL Level description

TRL 1 Basic principle observed
2 Technology concept formulated
Fuel 3 First assessment of feasibility concept and technologies
4 stroke 2 stroke handling 4 Validation of integrated prototype in test environment
Sector Fuel type IRL CRL engine engine & storage
5 Testing prototype in user environment
Ammonia 1 1 3 3 2 6 Pre-production product

7 Low scale pilot production demonstrated
Bulk Carrier
Methanol 1 4 5 4 5 9 Product fully operational
IRL Level description

Ammonia 1 1 3 3 2 1 Hypothetical commercial proposition
2 Commercial trial, small scale
Container ship
3 Commercial scale up
Methanol 2 4 5 4 5
4 Multiple commercial applications
5 Market competition; Driving widespread development
3 6 Bankable asset class

Ammonia 1 1 N/A 2
Cruise CRL Level description

1 Identifying problem
Methanol 2 4 5 N/A 5
2 Initial testing of proposed solution(s) together with relevant stakeholders
3 Proposed solution(s) validated by relevant stakeholders in the area
Ammonia 1 1 3 3 2 Solution(s) demonstrated in relevant environment and in co‐operation with

4
relevant stakeholders
Tanker Proposed solution(s) as well as a plan for societal adaptation complete and
5
qualified
Methanol 1 4 5 4 5
6 Actual project solution(s) proven in relevant environment
67 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Appendix 2

What does ‘zero emissions’ Near-zero refers to the GHG emissions associated with Fuel colours
the use of fuels produced using best available technology
mean? and 100% renewable energy that achieve overall GHG gas To more accurately reflect the GHG emissions reduction
reductions equal to or greater than 80%, but less than 100% potential associated with fuels, a colour palette is often
The terms used in this report use the definitions found in used to identify the production process and feedstocks of
document ISWG-GHG 13/3/9, which provided a basis for when compared to Low-Sulphur Fuel Oil (LSFO) produced
through conventional refining methods. fuels, which have different impacts on lifecycle emissions.
describing the greenhouse gas intensity of fuels during the The table below describes the various shades of methanol
revision of IMO’s strategy for the reduction of greenhouse As an example, renewable ammonia would deliver significant according to their production process and/or feedstock.
gas emissions from ships. tank-to-wake GHG emissions which, combined with
Absolute zero is used to describe an energy source that minimisation of well-to-tank GHG emissions, could bring
produces no direct or indirect GHG emissions across the full lifecycle (well-to-wake) emissions to near zero. Renewable
Well-to-Wake lifecycle. To be more specific, ‘absolute zero’ methanol would retain high tank-to-wake GHG emissions
describes where there are no emissions of carbon dioxide which could be reduced to near zero through use of captured
(CO2) or other greenhouse gases (GHG) across all scopes, i.e., carbon and the best available technology across the
where there are no direct emissions from fuel consumption production and supply chain.
or indirect emissions from energy purchased or any GHG
emissions from production to end use. Methanol colour Other names Definition focusing upon production
As an example, while ammonia contains no carbon, there The use of coal as a feedstock, considered to the production pathway with highest
Black -
are GHG emissions associated with its production, which emissions.
currently mainly using natural gas. Even ammonia produced
Produced from fossil sources (usually coal or gas), but by utilising carbon capture and
through renewable electricity would likely have GHG Blue ng-methanol
storage (CCS) the overall CO2 emissions are greatly reduced.
emissions associated with its production and supply.
Brown - The same as 'black' above - terms used interchangeably.
Net-zero emissions are achieved when anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere are Sustainable electricity (usually wind or solar) is utilised in its producton, emitting the
balanced by anthropogenic removals over a specified period. lowest possible CO2. To be consiered truly green, the production should be carbon-
Where multiple greenhouse gas emissions are involved, the negative either by using biomass or direct air captire (DAC) technology. The most
common method for producing renewable methanol is using hydrogen (produced
quantification of net-zero emissions depends on the climate Re-methanol, biomethanol from water electrolysis) ad CO2 (from DAC) which are then combined using Methanol
Green
metric chosen to compare emissions of different gases (such and e-methanol Synthesis. Biomenthanol is typically produced from lignocellulosic feedstocks
as global warming potential, global temperature change (biomass) such as agricultural waste and by-products. E-methanol is typically
potential, and others, as well as the chosen time horizon). produced from carbon dioxide (extracted from ambient air using direct air capture
(DAC) and green hydrogen.
As an example, methanol contains carbon and so will always
Has uncontrolled release of CO2. This production is often based on fossil fuels as raw
have GHG emissions associated with its use, but these can be
Grey - materials. Usually refers to the use of natural gas which is used to produce syngas,
balanced out by the use of captured carbon in its production. then made into methanol using the Fischer-Tropsch process.
Pink Red Produced using nuclear power.
Yellow - The same as green methanol but using electricity from the national grid.
69 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
For more information
go to lr.org
Enquiries should be addressed to

Lloyd’s Register
71 Fenchurch Street
London
EC3M 4BS
©Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, 2023.
Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates and their respective officers, employees or agents are, individually and collectively, referred to in this clause as ‘Lloyd’s Register’. Lloyd’s Register assumes no responsibility
and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or expense caused by reliance on the information or advice in this document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a contract with the relevant Lloyd’s Register
entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that case any responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and conditions set out in that contract.Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may
be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

Engine Retrofit Guide v8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engine Retrofit Guide v8

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engine Retrofit Guide v8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENGINE RETROFIT REPORT 2023:

Many of those elements remain uncertain while net-zero

LR Engine Retrofit Report 2023

8 Manufacturing fully tested, validated and qualified

Risk Based Certification (RBC) Process

Start 1. Design & Safety

5. Construction and In-Service Assessments

• Ergonomics: Ensuring the design of a vessel and its

risk, and how is delivery managed to promote adherence

Max. capacity of yards

pioneer returns protected by a water-filled cofferdam to eliminate the risk

after decade of require cofferdams around the tanks, except on those

discovery waterline , a far less challenging proposition.

Operational experience has also delivered insights into

LR Engine Retrofit Report 2023

11 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fleet and technology readiness

readiness: The Zero Readiness standard Criteria

Ready Framework Name Description Capabilities Additional

12 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fleet and technology readiness

13 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fleet and technology readiness

14 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fleet and technology readiness

Retrofit demand model (Scenario 2) - Number of vessels by year Methanol

15 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fleet and technology readiness

16 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fleet and technology readiness

9 Product fully operational

17 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fleet and technology readiness

18 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fleet and technology readiness

LR Engine Retrofit Report 2023

The other mechanism is FuelEU Maritime, which will come

LR Engine Retrofit Report 2023

24 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alternative fuel readiness

Ammonia TRL, IRL Resource

and CRL summary 7

Onboard Onboard Onboard

Methanol TRL, IRL, Resource Resource Resource

Onboard Onboard Onboard

Methane TRL, IRL, Resource

Onboard Onboard Onboard

25 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alternative fuel readiness

First Movers Framework – fleet and fuel supply analysis

Newbuild and Fuel production

Shipping regulations: Fuel production Non-shipping fuel

Decision making platform

26 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alternative fuel readiness

Methanol Transition Ammonia Transition Hydrogen Transition

Newbuild Retrofit Newbuild Retrofit Newbuild Retrofit

250 250 250

200 200 200

150 150 150

27 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alternative fuel readiness

28 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alternative fuel readiness

29 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alternative fuel readiness

LR Engine Retrofit Report 2023

31 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Technology and compliance considerations

32 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Technology and compliance considerations

33 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Technology and compliance considerations

34 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Technology and compliance considerations

RBC-2: Risk Assessment RBC-5:

35 EX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Technology and compliance considerations