Go Dual or Go Bust? Rationalising Operational Choices for the Future

Why It Matters

Dual‑fuel adoption determines whether shipping can meet IMO decarbonisation targets without prohibitive cost, influencing global supply chains and investor confidence.

Key Takeaways

• Dual‑fuel engines are commercially ready for LNG, methanol, ethanol, ammonia
• Regulatory gaps make green fuels more expensive than conventional options
• Global alignment needed; fragmented rules hinder fleet-wide dual‑fuel adoption
• Ammonia offers zero‑carbon potential but raises safety and bunkering challenges
• Shipowners seek cost‑effective incentives to justify dual‑fuel investment

Pulse Analysis

The push for maritime decarbonisation has accelerated since the International Maritime Organization set a 2050 net‑zero target. Dual‑fuel propulsion, which can switch between conventional bunker fuel and low‑carbon alternatives, is widely viewed as a pragmatic bridge technology. By allowing vessels to burn LNG, methanol, ethanol or emerging fuels like ammonia, operators can reduce emissions while preserving operational flexibility, a critical factor for global trade routes that demand reliability and speed.

Engine manufacturers such as Everllence and Wärtsilä Marine have already scaled production lines to meet anticipated demand, showcasing engines that meet performance standards across multiple fuel types. Yet the transition is not purely technical. Ammonia, for instance, promises zero‑carbon combustion but introduces stringent safety protocols and requires a nascent bunkering network. Similarly, methanol and ethanol demand dedicated storage solutions to prevent corrosion. These infrastructure gaps, combined with higher fuel costs, mean shipowners must weigh capital expenditures against uncertain regulatory returns.

The consensus among panelists was clear: fragmented regional policies are eroding the business case for green fuels. A harmonised global framework that imposes a cost premium on carbon‑intensive bunkering—through carbon pricing, fuel standards or tax incentives—could tip the economics in favour of dual‑fuel retrofits. Investors are watching closely, as clear policy signals would unlock financing for fleet upgrades and stimulate the ancillary supply chain. In short, coordinated regulation paired with market‑based incentives will determine whether dual‑fuel technology becomes the industry norm or a missed opportunity.