Marine Decarbonisation Assessment

Assessment Task: Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Marine Alternative Fuels

Module/Unit: Marine Environmental Engineering / Advanced Maritime Operations

Assessment Weighting: [Insert Specific Percentage, e.g., 50%]

Assessment Type: Individual Research Report

Word Count: 3,500 words (excluding bibliography, appendices, and abstract)

Submission Deadline: [Insert Specific Date]

Task Description

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has introduced the 2024 Guidelines on life cycle GHG intensity of marine fuels (LCA Guidelines) (Resolution MEPC.391(81)) to facilitate the transition to low- and zero-carbon fuels. This shift requires comprehensive Well-to-Wake (WtW) greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting to capture the total climate impact of fuel pathways.

You are required to produce an analytical research report that critically compares two distinct marine alternative fuel pathways (e.g., Green Ammonia, Bio-Methanol, e-LNG, or Hydrogen) against the baseline of conventional Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (VLSFO). The comparison must be framed through the lens of the IMO’s WtW LCA methodology.

The report must address the following:

1. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) Framework: Provide a detailed explanation of the three core stages of the WtW assessment: Well-to-Tank (WtT), Tank-to-Wake (TtW), and the cumulative Well-to-Wake (WtW). Explain how non-CO are incorporated into the overall intensity calculation per the 2024 LCA Guidelines.
2. Comparative Analysis: Select two specific alternative fuel pathways, detailing their full life cycle:
   • Feedstock Sourcing and Production (WtT): Analyze the upstream emissions associated with feedstock extraction, conversion process (e.g., electrolysis for Hydrogen, biomass sourcing for Bio-Methanol), and transport/bunkering.
   • Onboard Utilisation (TtW): Compare the combustion/conversion emissions and potential slippage/leakage ($text{CH}_4$ for LNG, $text{NH}_3$ for Ammonia) during onboard use for both selected pathways and the VLSFO baseline.
3. Logistical and Infrastructural Barriers: Critically evaluate the non-emission challenges and risks for the adoption of the two chosen alternative fuels. This must include:
   • Global availability and scalable production.
   • Bunkering and storage infrastructure requirements (e.g., cryogenics, toxicity handling).
   • Regulatory readiness and compliance with the Fuel Lifecycle Label (FLL) certification.
4. Conclusion and Recommendation: Provide a supported recommendation on which of the two alternative fuel pathways presents a more viable, sustainable, and commercially ready option for a specific ship segment (e.g., large container vessel, chemical tanker) by 2035, based on the LCA results and logistical analysis.
5. Ammonia versus Methanol LCA, Well-to-Wake: Fuel Intensity and Logistics, Decarbonisation Pathways: Fuel Selection for 2035, Life Cycle Assessment, Marine Decarbonization, Alternative Fuels, IMO MEPC.391(81), Well-to-Wake

References (Harvard Format)

1. Koehler, M. A., and Zeid, I., 2024. Blue and green ammonia as potential marine fuels: A life cycle assessment comparing $text{GHG}$ emissions across production pathways}$. Journal of Cleaner Production, 449(140510).
2. Koilo, V., 2024. Decarbonization in the maritime industry: Factors to create an efficient transition strategy}$. Environmental Economics, 15(2), pp. 42-63.
3. Meng, Q., Du, Y., Liu, T., and Jiao, Y., 2025. Technical and economic feasibility of methanol as a marine fuel: A well-to-wake perspective}$. Applied Energy, 381(125867).
4. ClassNK, 2025. ClassNK Alternative Fuels Insight}$. Version 3.1. Tokyo: Nippon Kaiji Kyokai. Available at: [https://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/publications/pub_free.aspx](https://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/publications/pub_free.aspx).
5. IMO, 2024. Resolution MEPC.391(81): 2024 Guidelines on life cycle $text{GHG}$ intensity of marine fuels (2024 LCA Guidelines)}$. London: International Maritime Organization.