Life cycle assessment of e-/bio- methanol and e-/grey-/blue- ammonia for maritime transport

Life cycle assessment of e-/bio- methanol and e-/grey-/blue- ammonia for maritime transportes,
 

Findings
–        eMethanol is fit for decarbonisation. It reduces average WtW GHG emissions by ~70% per TEU.km compared to VLSFO but relies on availability of biogenic CO₂ and its capture, which may present logistical and scalability challenges.
–         BioMethanol is fit for decarbonisation. It reduces average WtW GHG emissions by ~80% per TEU.km compared to VLSFO, provided sustainable biomass is used.
–        eAmmonia is fit for decarbonisation. It reduces average Container Unit WtW GHG emissions by ~50% per TEU.km compared to VLSFO, but faces challenges with engine efficiency, high pilot fuel use, and N₂O emissions. Ongoing technological developments might improve this result, requiring further engine and vessel optimization.
–         BlueAmmonia is currently NOT viable for decarbonisation. It emits on average slightly MORE WtW GHG emissions per TEU.km than VLSFO, due to upstream methane and CO2 emissions associated with the natural gas supply chain and the process used to produce blue hydrogen.

Only under specific optimized conditions considered in 2050 could it serve as a transitional solution.
–         The proximity of fuel production to the bunkering location significantly affects total emissions.
–         Electricity grid mix is a critical factor for both e-methanol and e-ammonia: low-carbon electricity mixes (e.g., France, Canada) perform far better than fossil-fuel-reliant ones (e.g., India, South Africa)

Regulatory Aspects
–         E-methanol and e-ammonia show ~90% lower emissions under EU-compliant accounting but ~80% when infrastructure emissions are included, still meeting regulatory thresholds.

Methanol, Ammonia and Hydrogen