Ethanol has become the first biofuel to receive approved greenhouse gas emission factors under the IMO’s lifecycle guidelines, but vessels burning it into European ports will still receive no credit under FuelEU Maritime, according to Ship & Bunker.
The assessment comes from Andrea Lazzaro, head of business development at engine designer WinGD, in an article published this week and reported by Ship & Bunker. WinGD supplies the dual-fuel engines ordered for the first ethanol-fuelled deep-sea ships.
IMO Approval for Brazilian Ethanol
According to Ship & Bunker, the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) approved emission factors for Brazilian “second growth” corn ethanol in its Lifecycle Analysis Guidelines for Marine Fuels back in April. Lazzaro states the fuel received a rating of 20.8 gCO2eq/MJ, which he says is more than four times lower than VLSFO.
However, Ship & Bunker reports that FuelEU Maritime does not currently credit emissions reductions from any biofuel made from food crops or food production byproducts, unlike the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). Lazzaro is quoted as saying that “the practical effect is that ethanol delivers savings under the EU ETS but nothing under FuelEU Maritime until the issue is resolved.”
Fuel suppliers are reportedly petitioning against this treatment, arguing that modern production techniques mean ethanol no longer compromises food production or security, Ship & Bunker notes.
Limited Fleet Exposure
According to Lazzaro, as cited by Ship & Bunker, the regulatory split matters less than it might initially appear because only around 20% of the global merchant fleet is exposed to European emissions legislation.
The commercial relevance of the issue increased following Shandong Shipping’s order in May for the world’s first ethanol-fuelled two-stroke engines, underwritten by a long-term charter to mining group Vale, Ship & Bunker reports.
Lazzaro also outlined a case for combining ethanol and green methanol, noting that WinGD engines can run on blended alcohol fuels. Owners committed to green methanol but facing limited supply or high prices could use ethanol through the same engine in the meantime, he argues, according to Ship & Bunker. Green methanol can qualify as a zero or near-zero emissions fuel under the IMO’s draft Net Zero Framework, though Lazzaro notes it remains far more expensive and less available than alternatives.
Ship & Bunker also reports that engines already installed to burn methanol can be adapted for ethanol with what Lazzaro describes as a “very simple modification,” citing the 9,000 TEU Terma Maersk as an example.
Does This Matter to You?
This development may carry relevance for owners and operators evaluating alternative fuel strategies, particularly those weighing ethanol or methanol dual-fuel newbuilds. The regulatory gap between EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime treatment could influence compliance cost calculations for vessels trading into European ports.
For charterers and traders monitoring fuel availability and pricing trends, the potential for combined ethanol-methanol engine operation, as described by WinGD, may factor into future bunkering and vessel deployment decisions. However, with only around 20% of the global fleet directly exposed to European emissions rules, according to Lazzaro, the immediate practical impact may be limited to specific trade routes and vessel types.
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
