Ports Lagging Behind Surge in Alternative-Fuel Ship Orders
Ports are lagging behind the surge in orders for vessels capable of running on alternative fuels, according to Lloyds Register, creating the risk of a split global bunkering system in which a large share of the merchant fleet cannot readily secure the fuels its ships were designed to use. The classification society reached this conclusion in a 65-page study, Fuel for Thought: Ports, which counted 1,942 ships able to operate on alternative fuels on order at the beginning of 2026, equivalent to 47% of worldwide orderbook tonnage.
Data from competing class society DNV put the number of alternative-fuelled vessels ordered during 2026 at 364, a 57% increase over the corresponding period of 2025. LNG remains the leading choice for newbuilds in this category, with 230 orders booked so far this year. Yet bunkering of LNG was offered at a mere 222 ports globally, methanol at 25, and commercial ammonia bunkering had been logged at only a single port as of the report’s September research cut-off.
Infrastructure Gap Hinders Alternative-Fuel Adoption
The disparity is most acute for newer fuels. Lloyds Register tallied 385 ships able to run on methanol and 45 able to run on ammonia on order, set against a very thin supply network. Kamran Ul Haq, senior vice-president of LR Ports Advisory, noted in the foreword that readiness is established well before the first vessel calls.
Conditions are shifting fast. South Korea’s Ulsan carried out the first commercial ammonia bunkering in April, delivering roughly 600 tonnes to Exmar’s Antwerpen. After the research was completed, China’s Zhoushan notched another first, as CMB.TECH’s newcastlemax Mineral Europa loaded 1,000 tonnes of green ammonia in the inaugural commercial ship-to-ship transfer of the fuel, an operation since repeated in Australia with the same ship.
Challenges Lie Ahead
Even so, the wider network is still in its infancy. Securing genuinely low-carbon fuel poses an added hurdle. Lloyds Register points to 61.8m tonnes of announced low-carbon methanol production capacity, yet only 6m to 12m tonnes of renewable capacity is projected to be running by the close of 2031.
The study flags the final link between fuel supply and vessel as a core commercial difficulty. Dedicated bunker vessels, licensing, contingency arrangements and berth access all demand funding before enough demand exists to warrant the outlay.
Location Matters
Location intensifies the problem. Northern Europe, North Asia and Singapore host most commercial milestones, whereas Africa, South Asia, Latin America and the Pacific stay underrepresented. The International Association of Ports and Harbors has cautioned that the port system is becoming increasingly fragmented, with developing nations needing $55bn to $83bn for climate adaptation and decarbonisation.
Conclusion
Commercial viability remains difficult, since green methanol and ammonia cost two to three times as much as conventional marine fuels, while cargo owners will pay average premiums of only 3%. Biofuels present a more readily workable option. Lloyds Register logged deliveries at 90 ports, though 77.5% of volumes were clustered in only 13 locations. Ul Haq determined that indiscriminate spending is not the solution, observing that no port must ready itself for every fuel simultaneously, but each port does require a plan.
Original Article: Ports Lag Behind Surge in Alternative-Fuel Ship Orders — Globaltrademag