Route logic, port infrastructure and customer requirements vary significantly.
Container lines, ferries and offshore units with clearly defined operational profiles.
It depends on technical compatibility and financing logic.
Use segment movements as a reference, not as a blueprint.
The differences in ordering speed between segments have technical, economic and infrastructural causes that are considerably more nuanced than the headlines suggest.
Container shipping dominates alternative fuel orders for a structural reason: the large liner companies operate fixed routes between ports with predictable infrastructure. A 15,000-TEU container vessel shuttling between Rotterdam, Singapore and Shanghai has access to LNG or methanol bunkering at all three ports. The investment decision is based on a known route with known infrastructure. This substantially reduces risk.
Ferries and RoPax vessels are the second fast-moving segment, and the reason is likewise structural: short, fixed routes with defined ports. A ferry between Helsinki and Tallinn covers the same route daily. Bunkering infrastructure need only be present at two points. Additionally, ferries in Europe face strong political pressure for emissions reduction because they frequently operate near coastlines and in ports adjacent to residential areas. Scandinavian ferry operators such as Viking Line and Tallink have therefore moved early to LNG and methanol.
Offshore supply vessels and wind farm service vessels form the third dynamic segment. Energy companies as clients increasingly demand low-emission tonnage for their own Scope 3 reporting obligations. The vessels are smaller, conversions cheaper, and operational profiles predictable. Hybrid-electric propulsion and LNG four-stroke engines are technically mature and economically viable here.
Tankers and bulkers react considerably more slowly, for understandable reasons. These vessels trade globally on the spot market with changing routes and ports. LNG bunkering infrastructure in West Africa, South America or Southeast Asia is patchy to non-existent. A VLCC trading between the Persian Gulf and China has no secured LNG bunkering along the entire route. Investing in an alternative fuel would be a bet on infrastructure that does not yet exist.
Dry bulk carriers face the additional problem of thin margins. In the bulk market, charter rates are volatile and profit margins narrow. The additional cost of dual-fuel tonnage at USD five to eight million per vessel must be amortised through higher charter rates. In the bulk market, where the price per tonne of cargo is decisive, a charter premium is harder to enforce than in the container segment.
Operators make a mistake when they transfer ordering data from one segment to their own decision. The fact that large container lines are investing heavily in methanol vessels says nothing about the right strategy for a Handysize bulker operator. Route profiles, margin situations, infrastructure access and regulatory exposures are fundamentally different.
What segment data can show, however, is the technical maturity of a solution. When the container segment orders hundreds of methanol-capable vessels, it means the technology works, the engines are available and the supply chains exist. This information is relevant to other segments as well, even if the application differs.
Segment data also shows where infrastructure is emerging. When ferries in the Baltic switch to methanol, the methanol bunkering infrastructure in the region grows. Vessels in other segments calling at these ports also benefit. Infrastructure development follows demand, and demand follows the segments that order first.
A German MPP operator (Multi-Purpose Project Carrier) examined the orderbook data in 2024 and found: in the MPP segment there were virtually no alternative fuel orders. Instead, containers, car carriers and ferries dominated. The internal discussion raised the question of whether the MPP segment was falling behind.
The analysis yielded a more differentiated picture. MPP vessels operate the most globally diverse routes, often with changing destinations in developing countries. Bunkering infrastructure for alternative fuels does not exist on these routes. The rational decision was not an immediate switch but preparation: fuel-ready engines for the next newbuilds and targeted efficiency upgrades for the existing fleet to improve CII performance and bridge the transition phase.
Segment data should be interpreted across three dimensions. First: technology maturity. When a segment orders massively, the technology is available and proven. Second: infrastructure development. Orders in one segment drive infrastructure that then benefits other segments as well. Third: no direct transferability. The decision must always be based on one's own route profile, margin situation and infrastructure access.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting