METHANOL and ammonia are progressing as future fuels but need a “concerted push” if they are to scale up from 2030, according to the Global Maritime Forum.

The GMF, a group of green-minded shipping companies and NGOs, said methanol was now ready for low-carbon operation and ammonia ready for piloting.

A report said more than 60 methanol-capable vessels are in operation and 300 more on order, with bunkering available at about 20 ports.

Interviews with early adopters found methanol “relatively safe and straightforward to integrate”.

Methanol’s lower energy density than conventional fuel presented operational trade-offs but had not proven to be a barrier.

“The key challenge to broader scale-up is the availability of green methanol, which makes up only a small share of total supply and remains challenging for shipping companies to access,” the report said.

The first ammonia-powered vessels have been successfully piloted, engine testing is near completion and bunkering trials underway, “none of which have revealed any fundamental barriers to adoption”.

“Operators report confidence in safely operating ammonia-powered vessels and will likely phase the fuel in over time to build operational excellence,” the report said.

Bunkering infrastructure was for now the weakest link in the ammonia value chain. The industry faced a choice between using dedicated ammonia bunkering vessels or a mix of shore-to-ship transport such as trucks or barges, which would be cheaper upfront but harder to scale up over time.

“Ammonia bunker vessels are expensive investments that need to achieve high levels of utilisation to be viable,” the report noted, adding it was unlikely many bunker vessels would be ready in time for the first few bunkerings in 2026-27.

GMF decarbonisation director Jesse Fahnestock summed up the progress of methanol and ammonia as “about where we would expect, which is promising”.

He said the market was well-versed in solving some of the technical challenges, such as the need for spare parts, and safety workshops for port workers.

But thornier problems, such as the business case for e-fuels, depended on IMO or other regulation to fix.

Fahnestock said more collaboration would help companies hasten the “natural refinements to the adoption of these technologies”.

“The more sharing you get around technical teething problems, the faster you’re likely to see them resolved,” he said.

Companies needed confidence not only in the supply of methanol and ammonia, but of the emissions reductions they offered.

This would come from the IMO’s lifecycle assessments of different green fuels, and from real-world testing.

Fahnestock said more independent research on the real-life performance of engines and how much nitrous oxide (N2O, a greenhouse gas 300 times stronger than CO2) they emitted would help investors be more confident in the fuel.

The GMF report called for robust, harmonised fuel certification systems to unlock investment and prevent greenwashing.

Other recommendations included using book-and-claim systems to help link demand and supply, and aggregating fuel demand (such as buyers’ clubs) to create an investment case for bunkering infrastructure.

Capex grants could help lower the threshold for investment in bunker vessels, the report said.