In 2026, methanol is no longer a future concept but a marine fuel in active use with a growing industrial base.
MAN announced what it described as the most powerful two-stroke methanol engine in 2025, while Waertsila has further expanded its methanol portfolio across four-stroke platforms.
The main limitations lie less in the engine itself than in the supply chain and project integration. Methanol requires more tank volume than conventional fuels.
Methanol is particularly suited to fleets operating on predictable routes where bunkering options are foreseeable.
Methanol (CH3OH) has a lower heating value of approximately 19.9 MJ/kg – roughly half that of heavy fuel oil. Its density of approximately 0.79 kg/l is comparable to water, which simplifies handling but doubles the required tank volume. Unlike LNG or ammonia, methanol can be stored at ambient temperature and pressure. This eliminates the need for cryogenic or pressurised tank systems – a considerable advantage for retrofit projects.
MAN Energy Solutions offers the ME-LGIM (Liquid Gas Injection Methanol) two-stroke engine series in a power range from 5 to 82 MW. The engine operates on a dual-fuel principle: methanol is injected directly into the combustion chamber, with a pilot fuel (HFO, VLSFO or MGO) igniting the mixture. The pilot fuel share is typically 3–5 % of total energy input. In the four-stroke segment, Wärtsilä offers the W32 Methanol and further platforms that are increasingly being qualified for auxiliary applications as well.
The regulatory framework is based on the IGF Code and the MSC.1/Circ.1621 Interim Guidelines for Methyl/Ethyl Alcohol. These cover tank arrangement, ventilation, fuel supply systems and fire safety. Compared with ammonia, the regulatory framework for methanol is considerably more mature – a direct result of longer operational experience, particularly from the Stena Germanica, which has been running on methanol since 2015.
For retrofitting existing vessels, the primary intervention lies in the tank system and fuel supply. The engine itself can often be converted if it belongs to a compatible series. Typical retrofit costs are approximately 10–20 million USD for a medium-sized container vessel, depending on scope and yard location. Yard time for a retrofit typically runs 4–8 weeks – a window that can be combined with a scheduled docking period.
In terms of material compatibility, methanol is less aggressive than ammonia but not without concerns. It attacks certain elastomers and plastics and requires methanol-resistant seals throughout the fuel system. Classification societies – DNV with the “Methanol Fuelled” notation, Lloyd’s with “Methanol Fuel System” – have specified the requirements in detail.
In day-to-day operations, methanol is considerably easier to handle than LNG or ammonia. It is liquid at room temperature, not pressurised and not cryogenic. Bunkering can be carried out via conventional truck-to-ship or barge-to-ship procedures. However, methanol is toxic – oral ingestion is lethal, and skin contact must be avoided. Appropriate PPE and closed transfer systems are mandatory.
Maintenance of methanol fuel systems resembles that of conventional systems but requires additional attention to seals, filters and fuel pump lubrication. Methanol has poor lubricity, which is why pumps and injectors must be fitted with integrated lubrication systems. Spare-part availability is increasingly good for the common MAN and Wärtsilä platforms, but for older retrofit configurations, lead times of 8–12 weeks for specialist components can occur.
CAPEX for a methanol newbuild is typically 5–15 % above a conventional reference vessel. OPEX depends heavily on the methanol price: grey methanol (from natural gas) costs approximately 300–450 USD/t, while green methanol (e-methanol or bio-methanol) sits at approximately 600–1,200 USD/t. Under FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS, the economics of green methanol are improving, as carbon pricing makes conventional fuels more expensive.
Crew training for methanol is less complex than for ammonia but not trivial. The focus lies on fire safety (methanol burns with a nearly invisible flame), first aid for exposure, and safe bunkering operations. Training in accordance with STCW and the requirements of the respective flag states is mandatory.
Maersk set the tone with its order of 25 methanol container vessels. This decision had a signalling effect across the entire industry and accelerated methanol infrastructure in key ports. By the end of 2025, over 200 vessels with methanol propulsion were on order or in operation globally – the majority being container ships and tankers.
Infrastructure is growing rapidly but unevenly. Ports such as Rotterdam, Singapore, Shanghai and Ulsan already offer methanol bunkering or have concrete timelines. In many secondary ports, the infrastructure is still lacking. This currently limits methanol to main trade routes – a constraint that should ease considerably by 2030.
The critical question remains the origin of the methanol. Grey methanol from natural gas offers only moderate CO2 reductions (approximately 10–15 % compared with VLSFO on a well-to-wake basis). Green methanol – whether from biomass or via direct air capture plus green hydrogen – achieves reductions of 65–95 % but is not yet available in the required quantities. Scaling production will be the central challenge over the next five years.
Methanol is a strong option if the following conditions apply:
Your route profile: Your vessels regularly call at ports that offer methanol bunkering or will do so in the near term. For global tramp trading, the infrastructure is still too patchy.
Your time horizon: For newbuilds with delivery in 2026–2028, methanol is one of the few options with mature engine technology and an existing regulatory framework. For retrofits, the investment pays off from a remaining service life of approximately 8–10 years.
Your compliance strategy: If you need a concrete reduction pathway under FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS, methanol – particularly with blending of green methanol – offers a plannable route.
Red flags: Be sceptical of long-term green methanol supply contracts at fixed prices. Availability is not yet secured, and price volatility will be the norm over the coming years.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting