Local water supply crucial to success of hydrogen initiative in Europe

Chalmers University of Technology

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Map of a simulated risk of water stress in 2050 where hydrogen is used in transport and industry. Baseline risk (regardless of hydrogen use) is represented by the background color in each area. Dashed areas show water use exceeding available resources due to hydrogen production. Blue dots show areas where the risk of water stress increases by more than 50 percent in the simulation.

view more 

Credit: Joel Löfving, Chalmers University of Technology

Green hydrogen is considered to be an important part of the global climate transition, especially as a fuel and energy carrier for heavy transport and industry. However, large-scale green hydrogen production requires sustainable ways of managing water resources to avoid giving rise to water shortages and conflicts with agriculture over access. This has been shown in a unique study from Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, that connects local water supply with a range of scenarios for future hydrogen needs in Europe.

Replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen in the heavy-duty automotive and industrial sectors has the potential to greatly reduce emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. This is especially true if the hydrogen gas is ‘green’, meaning that it is produced by electrolysis, a process whereby water is spit into hydrogen and oxygen using renewable electricity. A new study from Chalmers shows that planning where hydrogen will be manufactured, and the use of new technology solutions, is vital in order to avoid the large-scale production of green hydrogen leading to local water shortages in some parts of Europe.

In the study, published in Nature Sustainability, the researchers were able to explore different scenarios for how Europe’s hydrogen production might affect water resources, electricity prices and land use in 2050 – a year by which many countries have agreed to reduce their carbon emissions, which could mean the widespread use of hydrogen technology.

"Water is a resource that is often taken for granted in the energy transition. Our study is unique because we have connected the local perspective to the European perspective. We can show that even if hydrogen production does not require very much water in total compared to say agriculture, the local effects can be significant. This is because it’s better to produce hydrogen in close proximity to industry and access to renewable electricity, which generally means areas where water resources are already under strain. The conclusion is not that hydrogen production should be avoided, but that we must understand different perspectives and cooperate on many different levels – between government agencies, industry and local communities – to plan for the local effects of the transition,” says Joel Löfving, doctoral student at the Division of Transport, Energy and Environment at Chalmers.

Sörmland and Roslagen are high-risk areas

If hydrogen starts being widely used in industry and transport, the water supply might be severely impacted in multiple regions if the choice is to produce hydrogen locally, which is advantageous for economic reasons. For Sweden, it is anticipated that the water supply in the Sörmland and Roslagen regions, for example, is going to be hard pressed even without hydrogen production in 2050.  

“In Sörmland there is already a steel mill and a refinery. If they were to switch to hydrogen and use local water sources to produce it, this could exacerbate the projected water shortage. Also in the Roslagen region northeast of Stockholm, we can see that it might be difficult to source local water for the production of green hydrogen, and in the Bohuslän region on the Swedish west coast, and parts of Norrland in the north, large-scale hydrogen production could increase water withdrawal by more than 50 per cent. Although the water supply there is considered to be good, there is a risk that this production could have a significant impact on the natural environment” he says.

The study analysed over 700 local water sub-basins in Europe, and similar patterns to those seen in Sweden could be identified in multiple locations. In southern and central Europe, where favourable conditions for generating electricity with solar and wind power make green hydrogen production particularly attractive, access to water is estimated to be very limited by 2050, as local water resources are already under strain and vulnerable to climate change. Major industry clusters in Spain, Germany, France and the Netherlands, for example, could thus face a conflict with agriculture, for example, over water resources.

“There are many potential conflicts around water as a resource, but also many solutions, such as seawater desalination or the reuse of water from wastewater treatment plants. There are also interesting synergies, as the oxygen that remains from the hydrogen production could be used in the processes that treat the wastewater. Hydrogen has great potential to contribute to the climate transition, but we need to find sustainable ways to manage water resources – for the production of fuel and for agriculture,” says Joel Löfving.

Electricity prices impacted less than expected

In addition to water use, the researchers studied how a large-scale hydrogen economy could affect Europe’s electricity prices. By plugging the hydrogen model into Chalmers’ Multinode model – a model developed for optimising the costs of Europe’s energy system in different scenarios – they were able to estimate changes in electricity prices between different regions.

The results show that electricity demand increases significantly in line with the amount of hydrogen produced, since it takes a lot of electricity to replace the energy in the fossil fuels that so far we have simply taken out of the ground. Despite this, the results show that the impact on average electricity prices in Europe is relatively small. In regions with good access to renewable energy sources, such as northern Europe, the price impact is the smallest. In southern Europe, where some regions are dependent on a higher proportion of electricity from gas or nuclear power, for example, bigger price increases were seen.

“Electricity prices are a sensitive issue, but our modeling shows that increased investment in electricity production for producing hydrogen does not necessarily lead to higher prices for consumers. This is an important message to decision-makers – to cope with the energy transition, all fossil-free energy sources are needed and we must have the courage to invest in new, green electricity production,” says Joel Löfving.

Broad patterns and local consequences

Large-scale green hydrogen production would require a big expansion of solar and wind power. But the expansion would only take up a few per cent of the land currently used for agriculture, according to the study. And this area is significantly less than would be required to replace the same amount of energy with biofuels.

The researchers argue that, taken together, the results provide an important holistic perspective on Europe’s energy transition. Previous studies have often focused on either local effects or effects at overarching system levels, but rarely combined both.

“It was this connection that we wanted to make. If we are going to build the future’s energy system, we need to understand both the broad patterns and the local consequences. By considering risks, we will be able to manage them, and thus create more certainty for investments in green technology,” says Joel Löfving.

 

 

 

Green hydrogen

Produced by electrolysis when water is split into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity. The electricity used must come from renewable sources such as solar, wind or hydro power for the hydrogen to be labelled ‘green’.

 

More about the research:

The study “Resource requirements and consequences of large-scale hydrogen use in Europe” has been published in Nature Sustainability. The authors are Joel Löfving, Selma Brynolf, Maria Grahn, Simon Öberg and Maria Taljegard, all working at Chalmers University of Technology. The research was carried out within the competence centre TechForH2 and the Division of Transport, Energy and Environment in collaboration with the Division of Energy Technology.

 

For more information, please contact:

Joel Löfving, doctoral student at the Division of Transport, Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology: +46 31 772 16 47, joel.lofving@chalmers.se

Maria Grahn, Associate Professor at the Division of Transport, Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology: +46 31 772 31 04, maria.grahn@chalmers.se

 

Caption: Map of a simulated risk of water stress in 2050 where hydrogen is used in transport and industry. Baseline risk (regardless of hydrogen use) is represented by the background color in each area. Dashed areas show water use exceeding available resources due to hydrogen production. Blue dots show areas where the risk of water stress increases by more than 50 percent in the simulation. Illustration: Joel Löfving, Chalmers University of Technology

---

Journal

Nature Sustainability

DOI

10.1038/s41893-026-01771-5 

Method of Research

Computational simulation/modeling

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Resource requirements and consequences of large-scale hydrogen use in Europe

 

Digital Collaboration in Chemical Logistics

Decarbonization Is Turning Transport into a Chemical Logistics Coordination Challenge

Published Feb 20, 2026 2:31 PM by Mikael Lind et al.

 

[By Mikael Lind, Wolfgang Lehmacher, Jeremy Bentham, Chye Poh Chua, Philippe Isler, Jens Lund-Nielsen, and Per Löfbom]

Transport still relies heavily on fossil fuels and accounts for roughly one quarter of global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. Shifting this energy base to sustainable alternatives requires a systemic effort. As transport decarbonizes, the way fuels are supplied changes fundamentally. Crude oil and derived refined products are handled through mature infrastructure and well-established operating practices. In contrast, many low-carbon energy carriers fall outside this model as clean energy infrastructure remains materials-intensive and relies on polymers, composites, specialty gases, electrolytes, solvents, and coatings supplied by the chemical industry.

Hydrogen carriers, synthetic fuels, advanced biofuels, and e-fuels are produced, stored, and transported as chemical products that are contamination-sensitive, hazardous, and tightly linked to plant and storage operations. As with traditional fuels, moving them safely and efficiently typically requires specialized terminals, strict tank cleaning routines, careful sequencing, and close coordination among ships, storage, and inland transport. 

Maritime transport accounts for most of global trade by volume. It remains the backbone of world trade, with energy commodities such as crude oil, petroleum products, LNG (liquid natural gas), and LPG (liquid petroleum gas), accounting for the bulk of tanker capacity. Transition outlooks foresee part of this trade shifting toward chemically derived fuels such as methanol, ammonia, synthetic fuels, and advanced biofuels, which will largely move through existing ports, terminals, and ships serving the chemicals industry. Long-term decarbonization perspectives similarly point to low- and zero-carbon fuels supplying a growing share of shipping energy demand from a low base, often via regional hubs and corridors where these fuels move as chemical cargoes.

The challenge is therefore not only how to produce low-carbon fuels, but how to coordinate their movement reliably across complex, multi-actor chemical supply chains, and expand the use of more selectively applied just-in-time practices to the entire end-to-end supply chain. 

The Industry Is Optimized, but Lags End-to-End Coordination

Chemical logistics has been optimized within companies: shipping lines use advanced scheduling tools, terminals adhere to strict safety and quality standards, and producers manage production, storage, and deliveries with digital support. The main weakness lies in both fragmentation and coordination between organizations, where small differences in readiness, sequencing, or arrival times trigger last-minute changes to berth plans, tank assignments, and inland transport, necessitating buffers and emergency responses.

In a decarbonizing transport system that relies on tightly linked fuel and material flows, these coordination gaps increase costs, risks, and the likelihood of delays in scaling low-carbon solutions. The challenge is evident in liquid bulk, where tankers carry multiple chemicals in separate, compatibility-constrained tanks and terminals handle diverse, safety-sensitive products; when arrival times shift, tank planning, inland transport, and sometimes production must all be adjusted.

Chemical Logistics and the Business Logic of Dependency

Chemical logistics is structurally tight: many storage tanks are product-specific and integrated into production, blending, and safety systems, and many sites operate near capacity, leaving little room for error and disruption. Experts estimate logistics costs at 15–25% of product value, so delays and misalignment quickly erode margins, and even modest improvements in supply chain coordination unlock meaningful value and resilience.

In this environment, uncertainty is more damaging than delay: predictable lateness can be planned around, whereas uncertain arrivals force actors to hold extra inventory, reserve capacity “just in case”, and pay for back-up options. Operational experience across the chemical and liquid bulk chains shows that minor deviations early in the chain can materially degrade routing and sequencing efficiency, with knock-on effects on fleet use and plant performance. In this industry, commercial sensitivity is intrinsic, since data on readiness, sequencing, or prioritization can reveal production status, customer exposure, or market position, particularly in competitive tanker markets, so any coordination model must accept limited, selective information sharing.

Why Traditional Digital Coordination Models Fall Short

Many digital collaboration initiatives assume either a central orchestrator or a broad willingness to share detailed information, neither of which aligns with the realities of the supply chain industry, including chemical logistics. In liquid bulk, port authorities manage safety, access, and traffic, but not commercial supply chains; terminal operators act on behalf of cargo owners with only partial visibility; and there is usually no single operator or platform coordinating end-to-end.

Ownership structures reinforce fragmentation as cargo owners may own tanks or captive terminals and hold long-term capacity. Still, they cannot own port authorities, and ports are not natural custodians of commercially sensitive information. Shipping lines face similar constraints: ship positions are visible, but sharing precise arrival plans or onward employment can reveal strategy, making it hard to adopt systems that treat ETA (estimated time of arrival) as a fixed promise. The core issue is not data scarcity but the absence of governance arrangements that allow coordination without over-exposure, a gap that becomes more consequential as decarbonization makes chemical and energy flows more interdependent. This more interdependent future is expected to arrive sooner rather than later in the industry, making adjustments for better coordination in chemical and energy supply chains an urgent matter to protect margins and profits.

The Foundations of End-to-End Digital Collaboration

The key opportunity is to move interventions and activities from late, reactive alignment towards earlier, shared coordination along the end-to-end chains. The energy transition process makes an urgent necessity rather than a “nice to have”. Coordination works best when limited, pre-agreed sets of primary data are shared directly by those closest to the action and the chain of events, including shippers, cargo owners, terminals, shipping lines, and inland operators, rather than relying mainly on estimates derived from third-party data, which do not provide high accuracy and certainty.

In chemical and liquid bulk energy and feedstock flows, a small set of signals is often sufficient: planned, estimated, and actual arrival and departure times at transport nodes along the end-to-end chain, shared at the source and updated as conditions change, enable others to adjust in time. This can be transformative and  leads to three design principles: cargo owners decide who sees what, because they control readiness and bear much of the risk; ETAs are treated as intent, updated as conditions evolve, to facilitate early data sharing; and visibility is limited to actors directly involved in a flow, for a defined purpose and time window, to protect commercial interests.

These principles are well-suited to liquid bulk corridors for future fuels and critical intermediates, where tighter coordination is needed without undermining competition or confidentiality.

Principle and Practice: Primary Data with Ports in the Loop

Disturbances in chemical logistics tend to propagate across the full chain - from production sites to terminals, storage facilities, downstream plants, and inland transport. Coordination therefore needs to span the entire end-to-end flow, not just individual nodes. In practice, this points to a cargo-owner-driven, terminal-centred community model with port authorities in the loop. Producers, traders, suppliers, receivers and industrial users, terminal operators, shipping lines (tankers, container carriers, tank-container operators), inland transport providers, forwarders, and port authorities - including customs, safety bureaus, and other regulatory actors - form the core coordination group in chemical logistics. Given the layered nature of chemical value chains, where one actor’s output becomes the next downstream input, these flows often remain seaborne and interconnected across multiple stages and geographies.

Within this group, each participant shares their planned, estimated, and actual arrival and departure times, rather than only the cargo or vehicle's actual position, which usually provides limited value. This enables better sequencing, resource allocation, and contingency planning without revealing sensitive details. Ports and terminals benefit from structured pre-alerts on arrival windows, deviations, and actual movements, improving chain fluidity, safety, and energy transition planning and execution, while the commercial context remains within the individual companies. As analyses of emerging green shipping corridors show, linking short-sea trade lanes such as Sweden–Belgium with deep-sea bulk routes from South Africa to Northwest Europe can create corridor structures where stakeholders coordinate green ammonia production, fuel supply, and transport execution using limited shared signals. Such corridor-based coordination enables actors to absorb production or voyage delays, re-optimize berths, storage tanks, and inland flows, and reduce reliance on emergency storage, spot chartering, and losses of low-carbon fuels, while avoiding the disclosure of commercially sensitive information or counterparties1  (North Sea Port, 2024; Global Maritime Forum, 2025).

Building on the Trinity approach, the illustration below extends the coordination logic from ordinary cargo transport to a chemical flow transport system. While the same trustworthy signals - time windows, readiness, connection risks, emissions, and asset conditions - continue to sit between cargo owners, transport operators, and transport nodes, they are expanded to reflect energy availability and carbon integrity. In doing so, the model links transport execution directly to sustainable energy supply, ensuring that logistics flows are not only operationally aligned but also powered by verified low-carbon energy, without requiring the exchange of commercial data or contractual positions.

 

 

VWT as a Public Good Powered by TWIN

The Virtual Watch Tower (VWT) (www.virtualwatchtower.org) operationalizes this model as an emerging public good service for the global supply chain community rather than a proprietary platform or commercial intermediary. Its role is to provide neutral digital infrastructure for coordination, not to own or monetize data or manage transport flows.

The Trade Worldwide Information Network (TWIN.org) is a distributed system of independently operated nodes, organized in a decentralized (federated) trust architecture. Offering VWT the backbone for controlled, purpose-bound data sharing among a limited set of actors, backing VWT’s digital architecture (VWTnet), allowing data to remain with its owners while selected and limited planning, intent and progress signals are shared under agreed rules. VWT shows that it is possible to coordinate end-to-end flows in commercially sensitive environments without undesirable full transparency or centralized control, making governance - not technology - the main innovation. For liquid bulk chains, using this model at the terminal level can create a light-touch coordination layer across multiple ports, corridors, and value chains without imposing a single commercial orchestrator.

So What for CEOs and Policy Makers?

Senior business and policy decision makers should factor the following considerations into their strategic thinking around liquid bulk chains:

•    Supply-security and decarbonization are now coordination problems. Ensuring reliable access to future fuels and critical intermediates depends as much on end-to-end coordination of chemical logistics as on production capacity or shipping technology.

•    Governance is the bottleneck, not data or tools. The primary constraint is the lack of trusted frameworks for sharing minimal yet critical data signals among collaborating and lesser competitors, especially in liquid bulk ports and corridors.

•    Public good digital infrastructure is a strategic asset. Neutral architectures and services like VWTnet/TWIN can underpin clusters and corridors in ways commercial platforms cannot, making them a lever for industrial strategy and resilient decarbonization.

•    Early movers can shape the rules. Companies and ports that step into cargo-owner-driven, terminal-centric communities now will help define the standards, governance, and data conventions that others will later follow.

An Invitation to the Chemical Logistics Data-Sharing Community

Chemical logistics faces a huge opportunity. Although the industry is highly optimized for today’s reality, decarbonization, volatility, and tighter links between production and transport are increasing the cost of weak or delayed coordination, especially for liquid bulk flows that will carry future low-carbon fuels and key intermediates. At the same time, the sector already has a firm foundation in discipline and digital maturity. VWT offers a practical path for industry actors to co-create data-sharing infrastructure, starting with terminal and corridor communities that identify where uncertainty propagates, define trust boundaries, agree on a minimal set of intent and progress signals (estimates and actuals), and co-facilitate the necessary adjustments to existing tools like VWTnet, backed by TWIN.

As low-carbon fuels and materials scale, chemical logistics becomes critical infrastructure for the energy transition, and data-sharing for better coordination becomes a strategic and economic requirement and capability. Our invitation is to engage early, pragmatically, and collaboratively in building more reliable, better coordinated end-to-end chains that can support the decarbonization of global transport and logistics, of which liquid bulk is only one part. VWT provides a digital end-to-end infrastructure ready to support the necessary developments, gradually across all supply chains, with chemical logistics certainly a priority.

 

1 Global Maritime Forum (2025) Assessing the feasibility of the South Africa–Europe iron ore green shipping corridor. Global Maritime Forum, 30 October 2025; North Sea Port (2024) Sweden–Belgium Green Shipping Corridor expands ambition for world’s first green ammonia shipping corridor, 14 June 2024

 

About the authors

Mikael Lind is the world’s first (adjunct) Professor of Maritime Informatics engaged at Chalmers and Research Institutes of Sweden (RISE). He is a well-known expert frequently published in international trade press, is co-editor of the first two books on Maritime Informatics and is co-editor of the book Maritime Decarbonization.

Wolfgang Lehmacher is a global supply chain logistics expert. The former director at the World Economic Forum and CEO Emeritus of GeoPost Intercontinental is an advisory board member of The Logistics and Supply Chain Management Society, an ambassador for F&L, and an advisor to GlobalSF and RISE. He contributes to the knowledge base of Maritime Informatics and is co-editor of the book Maritime Decarbonization.

Jeremy Bentham is currently Co-Chair (scenarios) with the World Energy Council, a senior Fellow with Mission Possible Partnership, and a senior advisor to several international organisations including the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.  He was formerly the head of scenarios and strategy with international energy major, Shell.

Chye Poh Chua is a VC investor focused on disruptive technologies in maritime commerce and logistics. With four decades of experience across shipping, terminals, and maritime technology, he works at the intersection of commercial reality, governance, and digital infrastructure, with a particular interest in end-to-end coordination in complex, commercially sensitive supply chains.

Philippe Isler has spent more than 25 years designing and implementing solutions to facilitate and optimise international trade. After many years deploying and operating Single Window and traceability systems in developing countries on a commercial basis with SGS, he has, for the past decade, led the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation at the World Economic Forum. In parallel, he has also served on an advisory board at Neste, contributing to efforts to advance the decarbonisation of commercial aviation. 

Jens Lund-Nielsen is a pioneer in public–private partnerships for global trade. He co-founded the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation and the Logistics Emergency Teams with the World Food Programme, and has nearly two decades of experience from A.P. Moller – Maersk and PwC. He is co-founder of the TWIN Foundation and trade digitalisation initiatives including ADAPT, TLIP, and 3Sixty, and advises governments, the EU, the UK, and the World Economic Forum.

Per Löfbom is an experienced and certified IT architect with a strong background in IoT, e?navigation, integrations, and platform strategy. He has extensive experiences as an architect, project manager, and IT manager across industry, logistics, maritime and public sector. Additionally skilled in standardization, system design, system development and complex integration environments. 

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

 

Navigating the Deadlock: Accelleron’s Daniel Bischofberger on Green Fuels

I believe climate change is real, and we should develop and invest in technologies that help now. We shouldn't wait. 

iStock

Published Feb 11, 2026 1:11 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

Accelleron, a leading provider of turbocharging, fuel injection, and digital solutions for marine engines and ships, recently released a study on the multifaceted, multi-industry challenges slowing shipping's transition to carbon-neutral fuels. TME recently spoke with CEO Daniel Bischofberger about the current state of marine decarbonization, regional developments in Asia-Pacific, and the path forward for the industry.

Can you describe the current state of shipping's transition to carbon-neutral fuels?

The ships are ready, but the fuel is not. The technology exists – we have ships that can run on methanol, ammonia, and other alternative fuels. The engines are ready, the systems are in place, and there's movement towards hydrogen-based fuels. But these ships aren't able to run on the fuels they were designed for, because the fuels are not yet there.

We're seeing a concerning trend in dual-fuel ships. The dual-fuel portion of the orderbook is decreasing, while the share of conventional petroleum-fueled ships has increased. Within dual-fuel vessels, LNG is now dominant. This shows we're at a deadlock.

What are the key barriers?

Our report identified five interlinked, systemic deadlocks, based on more than 50 interviews with shipowners, ports, bunkering, gas fields, e-fuel developers, and maritime suppliers.

First, there are too many fuels. Between conventional options, LNG, biofuels, methanol, ammonia, and others, investment is diluted. The industry has essentially chosen two long-term pathways – methanol and ammonia – but to scale, it would probably be preferable just to have one clear choice of fuel we want to go after.

Second, production facilities for e-fuels need to be large-scale to be cost-effective. This creates centralized fuel hubs, but we have numerous ports worldwide that need these fuels. Distribution infrastructure becomes a massive challenge.

Third, while there's approximately $3.5 trillion in ESG financing available globally, shipping has only attracted about $14.5 billion. That's a drop in the ocean.

Fourth, regulation doesn't match ambition. The regulatory framework hasn't caught up to the industry's decarbonization goals.

Finally, port infrastructure needs to manage multiple fuel types for bunkering and storage. The investment required is enormous.

How significant is the investment challenge?

For marine alone, fully decarbonizing with hydrogen-based fuels would require 100-150 million tonnes of hydrogen per year – an investment of $2-3 trillion. But shipping isn't alone. Hard-to-decarbonize sectors like aviation, agriculture, cement, steel, chemicals, and power generation need 500-600 million tonnes of hydrogen total, representing about $9 trillion in investment.

The key insight is that no one sector can do this alone. All these industries need production facilities and distribution networks. This is why cross-sector collaboration is essential. We all need production sites and ships to transport fuel to ports, airports, and other facilities. The great thing is that shipping could play the role model, because it’s the only industry that has a global regulator.

What can the industry do during this transition period?

In the meantime, we have a 10-15 year transition period where we can significantly reduce CO2 emissions without waiting for full-scale e-fuels.

Biofuels can help at the beginning, though they're not scalable to the volumes we ultimately need. LNG offers about 30 percent CO2 reduction, though it's not zero emissions. Energy-saving technologies can achieve 35 percent reductions if widely implemented – air lubrication, wind assist devices, improved hull design, propeller optimization, heat recovery systems.

Operational measures matter too: speed optimization, weather routing, and proper maintenance. We offer digital solutions for weather routing where operators can choose between speed and fuel savings. We're also seeing more frequent hull maintenance rather than waiting five years between cleanings.

New ships are more efficient than older vessels, though we can't simply wait for fleet renewal. We need net-zero solutions, and we can't delay.

Are there some regions that are moving faster?

Asia-Pacific is where we're seeing real movement and solutions to the deadlock. Countries like Australia, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and China are moving ahead, driven primarily by government support and funding.

China's motivation is that they want energy security and reduced dependence on fossil fuels. They have abundant renewable energy capacity and can build electrolysis facilities. But it's also an industrial strategy. Just as they dominated wind turbines, photovoltaics, batteries, and rare earths, they want to be a major player in e-fuels because they believe the world needs them for climate goals.

On the production side, Australia and China are moving ahead with ammonia production. We're seeing smaller, modular production facilities being developed – not the massive facilities requiring millions of tons of hydrogen, but smaller 300,000-ton units. There are lots of subsidies, so the prices are not really correlating with the cost.

On the demand side, ports in Singapore, China, and Korea are advancing. They're developing this infrastructure first for uses outside marine. Japan, for example, wants to blend ammonia into the boilers of coal-fired power plants to reduce CO2 emissions. They're combining uses in power generation, agriculture, and marine – exactly the cross-sector approach we've been advocating.

They also have strong trade corridors. The iron ore route from Australia to Singapore and China is ideal – you have production hubs at both ends of the corridor.

What lessons can the global industry learn from Asia-Pacific?

The key lesson is that we don't have to wait for perfect global regulation before moving forward. The Asia-Pacific demonstrates this. However, they can only go so far without a global framework.

We need an IMO net-zero framework that makes fossil fuels more expensive through CO2 taxes while helping alternative fuels become cheaper through scaling and temporary subsidies. Some movement is happening, and we can learn tremendously from the Asia-Pacific region.

How does Accelleron fit into this transition?

We offer turbochargers, fuel injection systems, and digital solutions. Our technology is fuel-agnostic – it works with fossil fuels and alternative fuels alike. Our focus is on efficiency: vessel performance optimization and enabling new fuels.

Efficiency is crucial both today and tomorrow. In a fossil fuel world, it reduces CO2 emissions. In an e-fuel world, it's even more important because e-fuels have poor round-trip efficiency – you put in 100 units of energy and get about 20 units out. Given the massive investment required for hydrogen infrastructure, the best approach is to minimize fuel consumption. Efficiency matters today, tomorrow, and beyond.

What became clear when we started this report – and I come from the power generation and oil and gas sectors – is that nobody is connecting the dots. Aviation only thinks about aviation, power generation only about power. We're trying to change that mindset. Don't fight your own battle alone – join forces and get this done together.

We provide a small but important piece of the decarbonization journey, and through this report, we're using our network to spread information and help people find solutions.

What does the future look like for internal combustion engines in a decarbonized world? Do they have a long-term role?

When Accelleron went public about four years ago as a spin-off from ABB, potential investors questioned why we were listing when we supposedly had only a 10-year shelf life. The European idea at the time was no passenger cars with combustion engines by 2035.

We explained that shipping is hard to decarbonize. You can't fully decarbonize just by going battery-electric. Don't misunderstand – whatever we can electrify, we should, because battery efficiency is far superior to e-fuels. But for shipping, battery-electric has severe limitations.

Consider a large container ship traveling from China to Europe – it requires 40 gigawatt-hours of energy. Switzerland's largest nuclear power plant would need to run for a day and a half just to provide that electricity. With current battery technology, most of the ship's freight capacity would be used up by the weight of the batteries needed to store the energy. The ship would exist only to move and recharge batteries. Plus recharging would take days.

Unless battery weight decreases dramatically – which isn't on the horizon – batteries won't work for long-distance shipping.

Nuclear power is interesting, but it's land-based currently. Moving to ships requires societal acceptance, which takes time. Look at Switzerland – before Fukushima, we were planning new nuclear plants. Now we're reconsidering. Nuclear propulsion needs regulation, crew confidence, and broad acceptance.

We've looked at fuel cells, including turbocharged fuel cells, and we see technical challenges there too. Based on all this, I believe combustion engines will remain relevant well beyond 2050. Aviation and marine each need about 300 million tonnes of fuel annually. But shipping moves 90% of all goods with its 300 million tonnes of fuel, while aviation moves many people but relatively few goods. Shipping is extremely efficient, and combustion engines are highly efficient. They can run on net-zero fuels.

E-fuel costs will come down through scaling and temporary subsidies – probably to two or three times current bunker fuel prices. I think energy should cost something, or it gets wasted.

Will combustion engines with e-fuels be the only solution? No, most likely not. But I believe they'll be the main solution because I don't see viable substitutes at scale.

There will definitely be niche applications for other technologies. Ferries already run on batteries because they're short-distance, lightweight, and have sufficient charging time. There's no silver bullet, but one of the bigger solutions is definitely combustion engines with e-fuels, alongside other technologies.

Given all these challenges, are you optimistic about the industry's path forward?

I am. While global regulation may lag, some regions are moving ahead, and that creates competitive advantages. Countries that move first will benefit.

I believe climate change is real, and we should develop and invest in technologies that help now. We shouldn't wait. The good news is that even in this deadlock, we have solutions available today that can significantly reduce emissions while we work toward the longer-term transition.

The key is not waiting for perfection. Use what's available – wind assist, efficiency technologies, operational improvements, transition fuels. And critically, work across sectors. The hydrogen economy serves multiple industries, and collaboration will get us there faster and more cost-effectively than any sector going it alone.   - TME

Shipping Giants Forge Ahead with Green Investments Despite Carbon Price Collapse

By Michael Kern - Feb 12, 2026

Despite a collapse of talks over a global carbon price in the shipping industry, most major players continue with their investments in emission-reducing fuels and vessels, according to Reuters analysis of data and interviews with shipping firms, ship brokers, bunker suppliers, and marine technology providers.  

Last year, the United Nations agency, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), discussed for months a proposed adoption of the so-called Net-Zero Framework, initially proposed in 2023. The framework includes a global fuel standard and a pricing mechanism for global greenhouse gas emissions.   

The IMO has estimated that shipping emissions—about 3% of the global total—could surge by as much as 150% by mid-century without action.

But at the end of 2025, the talks collapsed, as the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, the biggest oil producers in the world, managed to get enough support to postpone the decision on a carbon price by one year. 

The shipping industry, which accounts for about 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, has not changed course despite the lack of a global framework on emissions reduction. 

In fact, Reuters interviews with companies operating and servicing the sector show that most of these go ahead with their plans to either use additional volumes of fuels alternative to the fuel oil, or order ships that can run both on fuel oil and cleaner-fuel alternatives such as LNG, methanol, and ammonia.  

Despite the lack of global regulations, regional emission rules, such as the EU’s FuelEU Maritime regulation, are prompting many shipping industry players to continue investments in greener alternatives to be ready for the regulatory framework in the long term.    

“The case for low-carbon fuels such as ammonia and methanol is still alive if you have a trade concentrated around Europe,” Kenneth Tveter, Global Head of Green Transition and LCO2 Shipping at ship broker Clarksons, told Reuters.   

By Michael Kern for Oilprice.com 

Navigating the Deadlock: Accelleron’s Daniel Bischofberger on Green Fuels

iStock

Published Feb 11, 2026 1:11 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

Accelleron, a leading provider of turbocharging, fuel injection, and digital solutions for marine engines and ships, recently released a study on the multifaceted, multi-industry challenges slowing shipping's transition to carbon-neutral fuels. TME recently spoke with CEO Daniel Bischofberger about the current state of marine decarbonization, regional developments in Asia-Pacific, and the path forward for the industry.

Can you describe the current state of shipping's transition to carbon-neutral fuels?

The ships are ready, but the fuel is not. The technology exists – we have ships that can run on methanol, ammonia, and other alternative fuels. The engines are ready, the systems are in place, and there's movement towards hydrogen-based fuels. But these ships aren't able to run on the fuels they were designed for, because the fuels are not yet there.

We're seeing a concerning trend in dual-fuel ships. The dual-fuel portion of the orderbook is decreasing, while the share of conventional petroleum-fueled ships has increased. Within dual-fuel vessels, LNG is now dominant. This shows we're at a deadlock.

What are the key barriers?

Our report identified five interlinked, systemic deadlocks, based on more than 50 interviews with shipowners, ports, bunkering, gas fields, e-fuel developers, and maritime suppliers.

First, there are too many fuels. Between conventional options, LNG, biofuels, methanol, ammonia, and others, investment is diluted. The industry has essentially chosen two long-term pathways – methanol and ammonia – but to scale, it would probably be preferable just to have one clear choice of fuel we want to go after.

Second, production facilities for e-fuels need to be large-scale to be cost-effective. This creates centralized fuel hubs, but we have numerous ports worldwide that need these fuels. Distribution infrastructure becomes a massive challenge.

Third, while there's approximately $3.5 trillion in ESG financing available globally, shipping has only attracted about $14.5 billion. That's a drop in the ocean.

Fourth, regulation doesn't match ambition. The regulatory framework hasn't caught up to the industry's decarbonization goals.

Finally, port infrastructure needs to manage multiple fuel types for bunkering and storage. The investment required is enormous.

How significant is the investment challenge?

For marine alone, fully decarbonizing with hydrogen-based fuels would require 100-150 million tonnes of hydrogen per year – an investment of $2-3 trillion. But shipping isn't alone. Hard-to-decarbonize sectors like aviation, agriculture, cement, steel, chemicals, and power generation need 500-600 million tonnes of hydrogen total, representing about $9 trillion in investment.

The key insight is that no one sector can do this alone. All these industries need production facilities and distribution networks. This is why cross-sector collaboration is essential. We all need production sites and ships to transport fuel to ports, airports, and other facilities. The great thing is that shipping could play the role model, because it’s the only industry that has a global regulator.

What can the industry do during this transition period?

In the meantime, we have a 10-15 year transition period where we can significantly reduce CO2 emissions without waiting for full-scale e-fuels.

Biofuels can help at the beginning, though they're not scalable to the volumes we ultimately need. LNG offers about 30 percent CO2 reduction, though it's not zero emissions. Energy-saving technologies can achieve 35 percent reductions if widely implemented – air lubrication, wind assist devices, improved hull design, propeller optimization, heat recovery systems.

Operational measures matter too: speed optimization, weather routing, and proper maintenance. We offer digital solutions for weather routing where operators can choose between speed and fuel savings. We're also seeing more frequent hull maintenance rather than waiting five years between cleanings.

New ships are more efficient than older vessels, though we can't simply wait for fleet renewal. We need net-zero solutions, and we can't delay.

Are there some regions that are moving faster?

Asia-Pacific is where we're seeing real movement and solutions to the deadlock. Countries like Australia, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and China are moving ahead, driven primarily by government support and funding.

China's motivation is that they want energy security and reduced dependence on fossil fuels. They have abundant renewable energy capacity and can build electrolysis facilities. But it's also an industrial strategy. Just as they dominated wind turbines, photovoltaics, batteries, and rare earths, they want to be a major player in e-fuels because they believe the world needs them for climate goals.

On the production side, Australia and China are moving ahead with ammonia production. We're seeing smaller, modular production facilities being developed – not the massive facilities requiring millions of tons of hydrogen, but smaller 300,000-ton units. There are lots of subsidies, so the prices are not really correlating with the cost.

On the demand side, ports in Singapore, China, and Korea are advancing. They're developing this infrastructure first for uses outside marine. Japan, for example, wants to blend ammonia into the boilers of coal-fired power plants to reduce CO2 emissions. They're combining uses in power generation, agriculture, and marine – exactly the cross-sector approach we've been advocating.

They also have strong trade corridors. The iron ore route from Australia to Singapore and China is ideal – you have production hubs at both ends of the corridor.

What lessons can the global industry learn from Asia-Pacific?

The key lesson is that we don't have to wait for perfect global regulation before moving forward. The Asia-Pacific demonstrates this. However, they can only go so far without a global framework.

We need an IMO net-zero framework that makes fossil fuels more expensive through CO2 taxes while helping alternative fuels become cheaper through scaling and temporary subsidies. Some movement is happening, and we can learn tremendously from the Asia-Pacific region.

How does Accelleron fit into this transition?

We offer turbochargers, fuel injection systems, and digital solutions. Our technology is fuel-agnostic – it works with fossil fuels and alternative fuels alike. Our focus is on efficiency: vessel performance optimization and enabling new fuels.

Efficiency is crucial both today and tomorrow. In a fossil fuel world, it reduces CO2 emissions. In an e-fuel world, it's even more important because e-fuels have poor round-trip efficiency – you put in 100 units of energy and get about 20 units out. Given the massive investment required for hydrogen infrastructure, the best approach is to minimize fuel consumption. Efficiency matters today, tomorrow, and beyond.

What became clear when we started this report – and I come from the power generation and oil and gas sectors – is that nobody is connecting the dots. Aviation only thinks about aviation, power generation only about power. We're trying to change that mindset. Don't fight your own battle alone – join forces and get this done together.

We provide a small but important piece of the decarbonization journey, and through this report, we're using our network to spread information and help people find solutions.

What does the future look like for internal combustion engines in a decarbonized world? Do they have a long-term role?

When Accelleron went public about four years ago as a spin-off from ABB, potential investors questioned why we were listing when we supposedly had only a 10-year shelf life. The European idea at the time was no passenger cars with combustion engines by 2035.

We explained that shipping is hard to decarbonize. You can't fully decarbonize just by going battery-electric. Don't misunderstand – whatever we can electrify, we should, because battery efficiency is far superior to e-fuels. But for shipping, battery-electric has severe limitations.

Consider a large container ship traveling from China to Europe – it requires 40 gigawatt-hours of energy. Switzerland's largest nuclear power plant would need to run for a day and a half just to provide that electricity. With current battery technology, most of the ship's freight capacity would be used up by the weight of the batteries needed to store the energy. The ship would exist only to move and recharge batteries. Plus recharging would take days.

Unless battery weight decreases dramatically – which isn't on the horizon – batteries won't work for long-distance shipping.

Nuclear power is interesting, but it's land-based currently. Moving to ships requires societal acceptance, which takes time. Look at Switzerland – before Fukushima, we were planning new nuclear plants. Now we're reconsidering. Nuclear propulsion needs regulation, crew confidence, and broad acceptance.

We've looked at fuel cells, including turbocharged fuel cells, and we see technical challenges there too. Based on all this, I believe combustion engines will remain relevant well beyond 2050. Aviation and marine each need about 300 million tonnes of fuel annually. But shipping moves 90% of all goods with its 300 million tonnes of fuel, while aviation moves many people but relatively few goods. Shipping is extremely efficient, and combustion engines are highly efficient. They can run on net-zero fuels.

E-fuel costs will come down through scaling and temporary subsidies – probably to two or three times current bunker fuel prices. I think energy should cost something, or it gets wasted.

Will combustion engines with e-fuels be the only solution? No, most likely not. But I believe they'll be the main solution because I don't see viable substitutes at scale.

There will definitely be niche applications for other technologies. Ferries already run on batteries because they're short-distance, lightweight, and have sufficient charging time. There's no silver bullet, but one of the bigger solutions is definitely combustion engines with e-fuels, alongside other technologies.

Given all these challenges, are you optimistic about the industry's path forward?

I am. While global regulation may lag, some regions are moving ahead, and that creates competitive advantages. Countries that move first will benefit.

I believe climate change is real, and we should develop and invest in technologies that help now. We shouldn't wait. The good news is that even in this deadlock, we have solutions available today that can significantly reduce emissions while we work toward the longer-term transition.

The key is not waiting for perfection. Use what's available – wind assist, efficiency technologies, operational improvements, transition fuels. And critically, work across sectors. The hydrogen economy serves multiple industries, and collaboration will get us there faster and more cost-effectively than any sector going it alone.   - TME