The growth of the global shipping industry has increased the interest in the environmental impact of this sector. The International Maritime Organization adopted the initial Greenhouse Gas strategy for reducing GHG emissions from ships at the 72nd Marine Environment Protection Committee in April 2018. In this study, we carried out a life cycle assessment of nine production pathways of alternative fuels, including LNG, ammonia, methanol, and biofuels, and conducted an economic analysis considering the life cycle carbon pricing of each fuel pathway. Our results indicate that biomass-based FT-diesel, e-methanol, and e-ammonia are the most environmentally friendly, with GHG reductions of 92%, 88.2%, and 86.6%, respectively. However, our net present value analysis of ship life cycle cost considering carbon price indicated that using those fuels would not be cost-effective during the target period of study. Sensitivity analysis was performed by changing the life cycle carbon pricing from the baseline scenario, and we investigated the approximate years for when these alternative fuels will become more cost-effective compared to conventional fossil fuels. Further, to provide practical implications for shipping stakeholders, we analysed the effect of blending the same kinds of fuels with different production pathways.

This study performs energetic and exergetic comparisons between the steam methane reforming and steam methanol reforming technologies combined with HT-PEMFC and a carbon capture/liquefaction system for use in hydrogen-fueled ships. The required space for the primary fuel and captured/liquefied CO₂ and the fuel cost have also been investigated to find the more advantageous system for ship application. For the comparison, the steam methane reforming-based system fed by LNG and the steam methanol reforming-based system fed by methanol have been modeled in an Aspen HYSYS environment. All the simulations have been conducted at a fixed W_net, _electrical (475 kW) to meet the average shaft power of the reference ship. Results show that at the base condition, the energy and exergy efficiencies of the methanol-based system are 7.99% and 1.89% higher than those of the methane-based system, respectively. The cogeneration efficiency of the methane-based system is 7.13% higher than that of the methanol-based system. The comparison of space for fuel and CO₂ storage reveals that the methanol-based system requires a space 1.1 times larger than that of the methane-based system for the total voyage time, although the methanol-based system has higher electrical efficiency. In addition, the methanol-based system has a fuel cost 2.2 times higher than that of the methane-based system to generate 475 kW net of electricity for the total voyage time.