🌱⚓ Biofuels in Shipping: A Sustainable Future or a Bridge to Nowhere?

My name is Davide Ramponi, I am 20 years old and currently completing my training as a shipping agent in Hamburg. On my blog, I take you with me on my journey into the fascinating world of shipping. I share my knowledge, my experiences, and my progress on the way to becoming an expert in the field of Sale and Purchase – the trade with ships.

As the maritime sector races toward decarbonization, one fuel has quietly slipped into the spotlight—not with bold innovation, but with practical compatibility: biofuels.

They promise a way to cut greenhouse gas emissions without expensive retrofits, making them especially appealing to operators looking for immediate solutions. But can biofuels really power the global fleet long-term, or are they just a convenient bridge on the road to cleaner technologies like ammonia, hydrogen, or batteries?

In this blog post, we’ll explore the types of marine biofuels currently in use, evaluate their sustainability and compatibility with existing engines, look at cost-benefit and life-cycle implications, and examine where they’re already being used successfully.

Let’s break down the facts—and sort the green hope from the hype. 🌍⚓

What Are Marine Biofuels? 🌾

Biofuels are fuels derived from organic matter—usually plant-based oils or animal fats—that can be refined and used as a substitute for fossil fuels. In shipping, biofuels offer the unique advantage of being “drop-in,” meaning they can be used in existing marine engines with little to no modification.

Main Types of Marine Biofuels:

1. FAME (Fatty Acid Methyl Esters)

   • Derived from used cooking oils, tallow, or vegetable oils.

   • Typically blended with marine gas oil (MGO) in ratios like B20 (20% biofuel).

   • Pros: Widely available, relatively low cost.

   • Cons: Limited oxidation stability, water absorption issues.

2. HVO (Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil)

   • Produced via hydrotreatment of fats and oils, similar to diesel.

   • Cleaner combustion, better cold flow properties.

   • Pros: High-quality drop-in fuel, stable and compatible.

   • Cons: Higher production costs, supply chain challenges.

3. Advanced Biofuels / 2nd Gen

   • Made from non-food biomass (e.g., agricultural waste, algae).

   • Still under development but more sustainable than 1st-gen sources.

   • Pros: Reduced land-use conflict, low carbon intensity.

   • Cons: Limited availability, high production complexity.

4. Bio-LNG / Bio-Methanol

   • Gaseous or liquid fuels created via anaerobic digestion or gasification.

   • Suitable for LNG/methanol-ready ships.

   • Pros: High energy density, low carbon footprint.

   • Cons: Infrastructure dependent, niche use for now.

Sustainability and Scalability: Green Dreams or Greenwash? ♻️

One of the most common questions about biofuels is: Are they truly sustainable?

The answer depends heavily on feedstock origin, production method, and land use impact.

Key Sustainability Factors:

• ✅ Carbon Neutrality: Biofuels emit CO₂ when burned—but ideally, this is offset by the CO₂ absorbed during plant growth.

• ❌ Land Use & Deforestation: First-gen biofuels made from palm oil or soy can displace food crops or natural forests, leading to net-positive emissions.

• ✅ Waste-Based Feedstocks: Using used cooking oil (UCO) or animal fats reduces waste and avoids competition with food.

Scalability Challenges:

• 🌍 The global shipping fleet consumes over 300 million tonnes of fuel annually. Biofuel production would need to scale enormously to meet even a fraction of that demand.

• ⚠️ Competing sectors (aviation, trucking) are also eyeing biofuels, tightening supply.

Conclusion:

Waste-based biofuels are sustainable—but their global scalability is limited. Long-term reliance on biofuels alone is not feasible without breakthrough production technologies.

Engine Compatibility: Plug & Play, or Pay to Upgrade? 🔧

One of the strongest advantages of biofuels—especially FAME and HVO—is their compatibility with existing marine engines.

Operational Pros:

• 🛠️ Can be blended with conventional fuels at various ratios.

• ⚙️ Used with minimal or no engine modifications.

• 🔄 Enables gradual fleet transition—vessels can run B20, then B30, then B100.

Technical Considerations:

• 🧪 FAME may oxidize or absorb water, requiring fuel treatment and tank maintenance.

• 🧊 Cold flow properties vary—care needed in colder climates.

• 🔬 Regular monitoring of fuel properties is essential to avoid filter clogging or microbial growth.

OEM Approvals:

• Most major engine manufacturers (e.g., MAN Energy Solutions, Wärtsilä) have approved the use of biofuel blends up to 30%.

• Some models are certified for B100 under certain operating conditions.

💡 Tip:

Start with lower blends like B20, and monitor engine performance before scaling up.

Cost-Benefit and Life-Cycle Analysis 💸📊

From a commercial perspective, biofuels are a mixed bag. Let’s break it down:

💰 Cost Overview:

• FAME: €600–€1,000 per tonne (depending on quality and region).

• HVO: €1,000–€1,400 per tonne—more expensive than VLSFO.

• Price volatility due to feedstock availability and subsidy policies.

⚖️ Benefits:

• ✅ Can improve ESG scores and reduce scope 1 emissions.

• ✅ Avoid expensive retrofits.

• ✅ Eligible for carbon credits or sustainability-linked financing.

• ✅ Helps meet CII and EEXI benchmarks, especially when used in blended formats.

Life-Cycle Emissions (Well-to-Wake):

• FAME: 60%–80% CO₂ reduction vs fossil fuels (if from waste oil).

• HVO: 70%–90% depending on feedstock.

• Advanced biofuels: up to 95% reduction, but limited data.

📉 Rule of Thumb:

Life-cycle savings >30% are typically enough to positively impact regulatory scoring under IMO frameworks.

Real-World Examples: Biofuels in Action 🌍🛳️

Biofuels aren’t theory—they’re already being tested and used on major routes and by major operators.

🛳️ Maersk Biofuel Trials

• Ships: Mette Maersk, Maersk Mc-Kinney Møller

• Fuel: 20%–100% HVO blends

• Route: Rotterdam–Shanghai

• Result: Emission savings verified and shared with cargo customers.

🚢 Boskalis Biofuel Fleet Program

• Dutch marine contractor running dredgers and tugs on B50 blends.

• Result: Reported 25%–35% GHG reduction in operations.

🧪 GoodFuels + Norden Collaboration

• Biofuel supplier GoodFuels partners with bulk carrier Norden.

• Biofuel blends used on bulk and tanker fleets with no engine issues.

🛠️ Stena Line Ferries

• Regular use of bio-MGO on Scandinavian short sea routes.

• Result: Seamless integration, improved public image, and emissions compliance.

These pilots prove biofuels are real, reliable, and regulatory-friendly—especially for shipowners looking to make near-term improvements without long-term infrastructure commitments.

Biofuels vs Other Low-Carbon Options 🔄

Fuel Type	Carbon Reduction	Engine Compatibility	Infrastructure	Long-Term Scalability
FAME (UCO)	60–80%	✅ High	✅ Existing	⚠️ Moderate
HVO	70–90%	✅ Very High	✅ Existing	⚠️ Moderate
LNG	20–25%	✅ Growing	⚠️ Limited	⚠️ Transition fuel
Hydrogen	100%	❌ Limited	❌ Early-stage	❌ Still unscalable
Ammonia	100%	❌ Not mature	❌ Limited	❌ Long-term horizon

✅ Biofuels are the fastest-to-deploy solution today.❌ They are unlikely to be the only answer to long-term zero-emissions goals.

Final Thoughts: Stopgap or Strategic Tool? 🧭🌱

So—are biofuels in shipping a viable path or just a temporary patch?

The truth lies in between.

✅ Viable Path for Now:

• Drop-in ease, low capital cost, and proven performance make biofuels attractive for today’s fleet.

• Ideal for shipowners needing CII/EEXI compliance or cleaner charter credentials without massive investments.

❌ Not the Final Destination:

• Feedstock limitations and competing demand from aviation and road transport will cap scalability.

• Biofuels may eventually be phased out in favor of e-fuels, hydrogen, or ammonia.

🧭 For now, smart operators are using biofuels strategically—as a bridge to a more diverse, carbon-free future.

Conclusion: Biofuels Belong—But They Won’t Go the Distance Alone 🌿⚓

Let’s recap the key takeaways:

• 🌾 Marine biofuels like FAME and HVO offer real, near-term GHG reductions.

• ⚙️ They are compatible with existing engines, making them easy to adopt.

• 📉 Life-cycle CO₂ reductions of 60%–90% are possible with waste-based feedstocks.

• 💰 Costs remain high—but justifiable for ESG performance and regulation.

• 🛳️ Real-world use proves biofuels work—but scaling them globally is a challenge.

Biofuels are not a silver bullet—but they are a powerful tool in today’s decarbonization toolbox. And for many shipowners, they represent the most practical path forward—right now.

👇 Have you experimented with marine biofuels on your vessel? What challenges or successes did you encounter?

💬 Share your thoughts in the comments — I look forward to the exchange!

---

---