Back to roadmapBack to list

Methanol demand

Methanol is considered a promising (low)-carbon energy carrier for maritime shipping.

Alternative fuelsMarine shippingInland shipping

Introduction

Methanol is considered a promising (low)-carbon energy carrier for maritime shipping. Compared to other alternatives, methanol has a relative high energy density and a low impact on the ship design. Low-carbon methanol can be made from biological origin (bio-methanol) and through synthetic production (e-methanol).

Value proposition

  • CO2 reduction

Application of methanol in marine shipping is primarily performed with dual-fuel engines, where Marine Gasoil (MGO) is used as a pilot fuel. This creates flexibility for the shipowner to use different mixes of fuels based on price, availability, and desired greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction. For the engine, the type of methanol (fossil-based, bio- or e-methanol) does not impact the performance.

Port applicability

Methanol is currently already applied on a commercial basis as a maritime fuel, and thus relevant for maritime ports. Methanol is currently mainly applied in container vessels, therefore, it is most relevant for container ports. There are currently also pilots being developed for application of methanol in inland navigation, especially for vessels with a large power requirement (such as push barges or dredging vessels). However, development of methanol for barges is still in a development phase and it is expected to be only applicable to inland ports in the medium term (after 2030).

Groups of innovations

  • Dual-Fuel Methanol Propulsion

    All current vessels sailing on methanol apply dual fuel internal combustion engines with MGO as a pilot fuel.

  • DME-Enabled Single-Fuel Engine Technology

    Other possible options that are being researched is a single fuel engine where methanol is converted to Dimethyl ether (DME ), so that no additional diesel is required as a pilot fuel.

  • Methanol Fuel Cell Power Systems

    Another option that is currently being researched is to apply methanol in fuel cells.

Impact

Impact level per aspect
ImpactLevelRemark
GHG (tank-to-wake)No impact
Applying methanol has limited impact on tank-to-wake GHG emissions, since the fuel is still being combusted on board.
GHG (well-to-wake)Large impact
The impact on well-to-wake emissions is dependent on the feedstock that is being used. Possible feedstocks for methanol include natural gas (fossil and the primarily used feedstock in current landbased application of methanol), biobased sources and synthetic production via e-hydrogen.
Air pollutantsLimited impact
Using methanol leads to a reduction of sulphuroxide (SOx) emissions proportional to the amount of methanol used in dual-fuel engines. Tier III NOx level can be achieved via several emission control technologies such as SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction), water blending or EGR (Exhaust gas recirculation). It should be noted that initial trials suggest methanol engines may have aldehyde emissions. This impact is still being researched.

Barriers and enablers

Enablers

  • EconomicEnabler

    Using methanol as a marine fuel enables emission reduction in the short term.

  • InfrastructureEnabler

    Widespread availability of bunkering facilities of methanol throughout Europe is an important precondition for a large adaptation by the sector. In some energy ports, there are existing methanol storage facilities available (for instance in the Dutch ports of Amsterdam and Rotterdam). These facilities can be used for distribution and supplying neighbouring ports.

Barriers

  • Economic barriersBarrier

    First movers for applying methanol in shipping risk high cost in case of disappointing uptake of methanol as a marine fuel. A main challenge to overcome however is the so-called “valley of death” between scientific innovation and commercial adoption. Early adaptors that implement methanol will face relatively high additional costs and operational uncertainties. This can slow down large-scale adoption, which in turn will reduce investments of technology providers and scaling up of production of renewable methanol. The short-term availability of renewable methanol, and the development of the price, are still very uncertain. This leads to hesitation for shipowners and maritime suppliers to invest in development of methanol vessels and equipment. The absence of a demand for methanol in turn will delay investment in production of renewable methanol, creating a vicious cycle.

  • EconomicBarrier

    The short-term availability of renewable methanol, and the development of the price, are still very uncertain. This leads to hesitation for shipowners and maritime suppliers to invest in development of methanol vessels and equipment. The absence of a demand for methanol in turn will delay investment in production of renewable methanol, creating a vicious cycle.

How to implement?

  1. Step 1

    Create corridors

    Innovation Supplier

  2. Step 2

    Convert Vessels

    Ship Owner (To invest in the energy-container ready vessel), Cargo Owners

  3. Step 3

    Standardize

    Innovation Suppliers

  4. Step 4

    E-Network role

    Innovation Suppliers

Timeline

The arrow below represents the expected development of the TRL of methanol demand.
* Technical Readiness Level

What should a port do in the next 3 years?

As of April 2026, there are 123 methanol fuelled vessels in operation and 325 on order. Long term uptake is uncertain and depends on the development of key enablers and barriers. For ports, a similar bunkering uptake strategy can be used for LNG. First incidental bunkering requests could be met via a short sea vessel or inland barge from another port. When demand become structural, dedicated bunkering infrastructure (such as methanol bunkering barges) may be desired

Stakeholder overview

Below is an overview of the required involved stakeholders
Light stakeholder are essential, dark stakeholders are enabling

Knowledge base