Sign in
Zero carbon ammonia continues to face safety hurdles and cost challenges compared to alternative shipping fuels such as menthol, biofuels, and LNG, Reuters reports.
“Currently the lack of regulation, experience in use and toxicity of ammonia on board ships constitute major safety deterrents,” mining giant Rio Tinto head of commercial operations Laure Baratgin told the newswire. Refueling vessels with ammonia has the potential to cause acute poisoning and damage to the skin, eyes, and respiratory system, with the greatest risk posed by leakage during bunkering operations, the newswire explains. “For oil, you see it – it stays there and it spreads out in water. But ammonia dissipates in air,” GCMD CEO Lynn Loo told Reuters.
(** Tap or click the headline above to read this story with all of the links to our background and outside sources.)
High costs add to the trouble: For ammonia bunkering to be competitive, its associated costs will have to fall significantly, as powering ammonia-fuelled vessels can cost up to two to four times more than conventional fuels. Ships operating on ammonia engines will also rack up extra maintenance costs, as the fuel is corrosive. “If you want to travel the same distance, you either have to carry two and a half times that amount of fuel, or you have to bunker more frequently so that you have enough fuel to be able to make that trip,” Loo added.
Still, ammonia’s major selling point is that it is a zero-emission fuel when made from green hydrogen.
The orderbook: Just some 25 ammonia dual-fuel vessels have been ordered as of 2024, with shippers still hesitant due to safety risks. This pales in comparison to at least 722 LNG-fuelled vessels and 62 methanol-fuelled vessels on order as of 2024.
In the pipeline: The first cargo ships powered by ammonia are set to enter service in 2026. The industry is gearing up for this, with the first transfer of ammonia from one ship to another safely completed last month in Western Australia, the newswire says.
