A new study focused on the Asia-Europe shipping corridor has found that soybean-based biodiesel offers a faster and cheaper route to cutting emissions in the near term compared to electrofuels, according to Ship & Bunker. The research, published in Nature Sustainability, suggests e-fuels will not become competitive until after 2040.
Key Findings on Fuel Performance
According to Ship & Bunker, the study was led by Chengjiang Li of Guizhou University and evaluated 13 alternative fuels through to 2050. Researchers used a lifecycle model combined with system dynamics, running approximately 1,300 scenarios to assess outcomes.
On a well-to-wake basis, the study found that bio-LNG reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 47.4% compared to heavy fuel oil (HFO), while bio-methanol achieved a 41.5% reduction and bio-hydrogen delivered 31.1%, as reported by Ship & Bunker.
Soybean-based biodiesel was identified as the most viable near-term option because it is already available and deployable, whereas electrofuels remain significantly more expensive. Ship & Bunker notes that the study places e-fuels at only 11.1% to 35.6% of HFO’s market competitiveness at current pricing, with this gap expected to close only after 2040 as renewable electricity costs decline.
Regulatory Frameworks Under the Microscope
The study’s authors concluded that “policy design and regulatory stringency substantially shape fuel transition trajectories for maritime decarbonization,” according to Ship & Bunker. The researchers assessed the IMO Net-Zero Framework, which features annually tightening carbon-intensity targets alongside two-tier penalties of $100 and $380 per tonne of CO2 equivalent, as a more globally balanced driver of fuel transition than the EU’s FuelEU Maritime regulation. The study found that FuelEU Maritime adds a cost premium of up to 7.6%, as reported by Ship & Bunker.
Caveats and Wider Context
Ship & Bunker reports that the study’s authors acknowledged limitations, noting that their model does not factor in operator behavior or market shifts, and that electrofuels only perform well in regions where renewable power is already abundant.
The report also highlights an unaddressed complication: soybean is a food crop, and under FuelEU Maritime rules, food- and feed-based biofuels receive no compliance credit. This means a vessel calling at a European port could not count the study’s preferred near-term fuel toward its regulatory obligations there.
Ship & Bunker further notes that crop-based biofuels and biogases generally carry a higher carbon intensity than those derived from agri-food waste, a point raised by Bastien Declercq of CSC in an earlier Ship & Bunker article. This underscores a growing emphasis on waste-based biofuels and other low-carbon options as the shipping industry looks beyond the immediate term.
Does This Matter to You?
For those tracking fuel strategy and compliance planning on the Asia-Europe trade, this study offers data-driven insight into which alternative fuels may deliver the most practical emissions reductions in the coming years. Bunker traders, vessel operators, and charterers evaluating fuel procurement decisions may find the comparative competitiveness figures for e-fuels versus biodiesel useful when assessing near-term versus long-term fuel strategies.
The regulatory comparison between the IMO Net-Zero Framework and FuelEU Maritime, along with the finding that food-based biofuels earn no compliance credit under EU rules, could be relevant for operators structuring compliance pathways across different regulatory jurisdictions. However, the study’s own caveats regarding market behavior and regional renewable energy availability suggest these findings should be considered alongside other operational and commercial factors.
Gulf Bunkering does not provide operational or security guidance. This article is for informational purposes only. Operators should consult flag state authorities, P&I clubs, and relevant advisories for decisions relating to transit planning.
Sources: Ship & Bunker
