Fuel supply matters more than engine choice. Retrofit remains a core pathway. CO2 costs are taking operational effect.
Lifecycle optimisation, data quality as a bottleneck, ports as strategic pace-setters.
Owner-OEM-class working more closely. The human side of the energy transition gaining weight.
New service markets. Strategic sobriety will be rewarded.
Point 1 – Fuel supply before engine choice: The greatest technical challenge of the next 24 months is not engine technology but fuel availability. Methanol bunkering capacity in Europe is concentrated in a handful of ports; ammonia bunkering does not yet exist at commercial scale; LNG is the most widely available, yet even here supply gaps exist outside the main routes. Anyone ordering an engine without securing the supply chain is purchasing a capability they cannot use.
Point 2 – Retrofit as a core pathway: With newbuilding delivery times of three to four years and rising yard prices, retrofit remains the only route for many operators to achieve short-term emission improvements. Demand for dual-fuel conversion kits, scrubber installations and energy efficiency measures will continue to rise over the next 24 months.
Point 3 – CO2 costs taking operational effect: Since 2024, vessels calling at EU ports fall under the EU ETS. The costs are real and rising. For a typical container vessel on European routes, annual EU ETS costs can be in the seven-figure range. These costs fundamentally change the operational calculation and make efficiency measures and fuel switching more economically urgent.
Point 4 – Lifecycle optimisation: Rather than viewing individual technologies in isolation, operators will increasingly need to optimise the entire lifecycle of their vessels. This encompasses predictive maintenance, condition monitoring, optimised docking intervals and an intelligent coordination of speed, route planning and fuel deployment.
Point 5 – Data quality as a bottleneck: Many of the promised optimisations fail due to data quality. Sensor data are often incomplete, inconsistent or not available in real time. MRV and DCS reports deliver aggregated data that are too coarse for operational fine-tuning. Those who do not improve their data infrastructure over the next 24 months will be unable to realise the promised efficiency gains.
Point 6 – Ports as pace-setters: Ports are increasingly determining the pace of the energy transition. Shore power obligations in the EU from 2030, bunkering infrastructure investments and differentiated port charges based on emission profiles are changing the rules. Operators must align their fleet strategy with the actual timelines of ports – not with political announcements.
Point 7 – Owner-OEM-class working more closely: The complexity of alternative fuels forces closer collaboration between owners, engine manufacturers and classification societies. Pilot projects, joint testing programmes and early alignment on class requirements will become the norm over the next 24 months. Those who do not actively seek this collaboration will progress more slowly.
Point 8 – The human factor: The energy transition in shipping has a human dimension that is frequently underestimated. Crews must be trained for new fuels, safety concepts must be lived rather than merely documented, and the workload on board increases through additional compliance requirements. MLC-compliant conditions and realistic training concepts are not optional but operationally mandatory.
Points 9 and 10 – New service markets and sobriety rewarded: The energy transition creates new business fields: consultancy for readiness assessments, retrofit planning, crew training for alternative fuels, emission data management. At the same time, operators who prioritise soberly rather than chasing every trend will be rewarded. Strategic clarity about one’s own pathway is worth more than pursuing every new technology announcement.
The convergence of these ten points is particularly evident in the northern European short-sea segment. Here, EU ETS costs, shore power requirements, limited bunkering infrastructure and an ageing fleet collide simultaneously. Operators who invested early in retrofit and crew training report tangible competitive advantages – not because they chose the perfect technology, but because they were systematically prepared.
In the deep-sea segment, the dynamics differ. Here, the question of fuel availability on long routes dominates. The next 24 months will reveal whether the announced methanol and ammonia bunkering capacities in Singapore, Rotterdam and the Gulf of Mexico are actually realised – or whether the supply gap continues to delay technology decisions.
For technical managers and managing directors, a three-tier prioritisation is recommended. Tier one (immediate): quantify EU ETS costs, calculate the CII trajectory for each vessel, and identify short-term efficiency measures. Tier two (within six months): conduct a readiness assessment for the core fleet, evaluate retrofit options, and review data infrastructure. Tier three (within 18 months): update fleet strategy, negotiate supply contracts, and establish crew training programmes.
This prioritisation is deliberately conservative. It favours substance over speed and reliable data over market euphoria. In an environment where technologies and regulations change rapidly, sober preparation is the best protection against misguided investments.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting