1、I N S I G H T R E P O R TD E C E M B E R 2 0 2 3In collaboration with Boston Consulting GroupFuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel SupplyImages:Getty Images 2023 World Economic Forum.All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

2、 in any form or by any means,including photocopying and recording,or by any information storage and retrieval system.Disclaimer This document is published by the World Economic Forum as a contribution to a project,insight area or interaction.The findings,interpretations and conclusions expressed her

3、ein are a result of a collaborative process facilitated and endorsed by the World Economic Forum but whose results do not necessarily represent the views of the World Economic Forum,nor the entirety of its Members,Partners or other stakeholders.ContentsForeword 3Executive summary 4Introduction 51 Te

4、n barriers limiting zero-emission shipping fuel project FID 81.1 Customer and consumer demand 101.2 Economics and finance 111.3 Regulatory issues 121.4 Supply-chain and infrastructure enablers 141.5 Organizational factors 162 Charting the course 172.1 Collaborations across value chains and other sec

5、tors,19 ideally on green product development2.2 Publicprivate demand aggregation to drive 20 offtake agreements 2.3 Integrators driving strategic green corridor focus 212.4 Non-traditional contracting and finance mechanisms 213 Full speed ahead 22Contributors 24Endnotes 26Fuelling the Future of Ship

6、ping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply2ForewordWe are in the middle of what needs to be the decade of action if maritime shipping is to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.Shipping is an industry that operates assets with a long life span and hence actions not taken today will affect

7、us long into the future.The global shipping industry facilitates the movement of 80%of goods around the world,but also accounts for 23%of global greenhouse gas emissions.We need to eliminate these emissions through the scaling of technologies that can power deep-sea vessels.When the First Movers Coa

8、lition(FMC)was launched in 2021,shipping was one of the first four hard-to-abate sectors included(along with aviation,steel and trucking).Momentum has continued to grow as our members have started to move from commitment to action.Many FMC companies are taking bold action,including orders for dual-f

9、uel vessels,offtakes of zero-emission fuels and agreements to move cargo on zero-emission vessels.Despite all this positive momentum,our FMC shipping members have highlighted barriers in the maritime value chain and beyond that hinder decarbonization from progressing at the speed needed.The nexus be

10、tween demand and supply is an important dynamic:a stronger demand signal increases confidence to invest in the supply side,whereas conversely demand confidence is diminished by difficulties in securing zero-emission shipping fuel supply.While the FMC was launched to strengthen the credible demand si

11、gnal,it is apparent that more needs to be done to overcome the barriers hindering projects seeking to scale zero-emission fuel supply to the final investment decision(FID)stage.Through this insight report,the World Economic Forum,together with the Boston Consulting Group,intends to shed light on som

12、e of the key barriers for stakeholders working to get zero-emission shipping fuel projects past FID.Via qualitative interviews conducted in late summer 2023,combined with a roundtable discussion,we have collected input from more than 20 stakeholders with different vantage points along the maritime s

13、hipping value chain,including FMC members,as well as,importantly,stakeholders operating on the supply side.We thank them for taking the time to contribute to this work and for sharing their top concerns with us.Further,in this report we offer an initial perspective on how to start addressing the bar

14、riers affecting zero-emission fuel projects today.These include,especially,the need to explore unconventional partnerships and business models with transparent cost and risk sharing,which extend beyond what is typically seen in the maritime shipping and energy industries.The solutions are by no mean

15、s intended to be exhaustive,but rather to act as a conversation starter for stakeholders to come together to act,enabling the first few projects to get off the ground.Mette Asmussen Lead,Maritime Sector Initiatives,World Economic ForumPeter Jonathan Jameson Managing Director and Partner,Boston Consu

16、lting GroupFuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel SupplyDecember 2023Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply3Executive summaryTo align with the Paris Agreement and aim for net-zero emissions by 2050,the shipping sector mus

17、t reduce its emissions by around 15%by 2030 vs.2022 levels.Among the available decarbonization options,zero-emission fuels such as methanol and ammonia are an important focus area.The demand for such fuels is on the rise,as indirectly indicated by 180+dual-fuel ships on order,but on the supply side,

18、more than 95%of projects centred on producing these fuels have not yet passed the final investment decision(FID)phase.Discussions held for this report with maritime shipping decarbonization-focused decision-makers from more than 20 private,public and non-governmental organizations identified 10 barr

19、iers limiting zero-emission shipping fuel projects from getting past FID:1.Lack of clear demand signals with sufficient willingness to pay to cover the green premium2.Expectations gap between fuel producers and carriers on the length,volume and price of offtake agreements3.Lack of credible third-par

20、ty cost estimates,making it difficult for financiers and offtakers to assess options on a like-for-like basis4.Venture-like risk but infrastructure-sized investment requirements means existing financial instruments and funds are not fit for purpose in terms of time horizons and risk appetite 5.Lack

21、of strong near-to mid-term mandates or a global price on carbon6.Standard definitions,methods and certifications still under development7.Access to biogenic CO2 in locations close to cheap renewables for methanol production becoming tougher;de-risking needed for the use of ammonia as a marine fuel a

22、nd its handling at ports8.Shippings transition competing against other sectors,e.g.chemicals for methanol,fertilizers for ammonia and more broadly for low-carbon H2 and CO2 feedstocks9.Storage and transport infrastructure for zero-emission fuels underdeveloped and responsibility for last-mile logist

23、ics uncertain;many promising e-fuel locations far from major ports and shipping routes10.Decarbonization decisions and traditional department-specific business KPIs such as profit and loss(P&L)not always placed with the same team;risk appetite limited by a shortage of experts and/or decision-making

24、mandatesAlthough daunting,these barriers need not all be overcome simultaneously.The important thing is to get the first few projects off the ground and drive the process of learning-by-doing at scale.For example,stakeholders from across the value chain including fuel producers,project developers,ca

25、rriers,cargo owners,bunkering companies,port authorities,financiers and governments could come together in innovative ways to isolate,share and eliminate the risks by:Developing projects spanning the entire value chain with transparent cost and risk-sharing,ideally on green product development Conso

26、lidating shippings demand for methanol and ammonia with other sectors(e.g.chemicals,fertilizers)to hedge end-market risk Driving offtake agreements through public-private demand aggregation,including via reverse auctions Developing strategic green corridors in the most attractive production location

27、s and shipping routes,with reciprocal regulatory backing at endpoints Using innovative contracting and financing mechanisms,including capacity payments,dynamic contract pricing,offering equity stakes to strategic buyersComplementary to actions that can get the first few projects off the ground,stake

28、holders also need to continue to proactively engage not only national/regional governments and maritime regulatory bodies such as the International Maritime Organization,but also multilateral bodies such as the International Organization for Standardization to help establish clear regulations and st

29、andards and articulate the requirement for greater regulatory support.Collaborations to overcome the 10 barriers are under way,but first movers need to continue to take bold action to prevent progress from stalling and lay the foundations for a zero-emission future in shipping.Understanding and addr

30、essing barriers to zero-emission shipping fuel project FIDs is key to accelerating maritime shippings decarbonization.Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply4IntroductionDemand signals for zero-emission shipping fuel are on the rise,but are not providing suf

31、ficient confidence to fuel producers,as evidenced by the vast majority of zero-emission fuel production projects remaining in the pre-FID phase.Today,maritime shipping is considered a hard-to-abate sector and accounts for 23%of global greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions.1 Because more than 80%,or roughly 1

32、1 billion tonnes,of the worlds traded goods travel by ship,2 direct emissions from shipping is an integral part of supply-chain(Scope 3)emissions for almost every multinational business.For the sector to meet the goals set out in the Paris Agreement,emissions will have to decline by almost 15%by 203

33、0 vs.2022 levels to be in line with the International Energy Agency(IEA)Net Zero Emissions by 2050(NZE)scenario.3Since 2018,when the International Maritime Organization(IMO)adopted its initial strategy to reduce annual GHG emissions from ships by at least 50%by 2050 compared to 2008,there have been

34、significant signs of progress,primarily in the form of scaling demand signals throughout the value chain.And in 2023 the IMO adopted an upwards revision of its GHG strategy,which now aims to reduce emissions by 20%,striving for 30%by 2030 compared to 2008,with the ultimate goal being to reach net-ze

35、ro emissions in or around 2050.Still,real progress in decarbonizing the industry will need a major shift away from the fossil fuels that currently power the vast majority of the worlds ships and towards a variety of near-zero and zero-emission fuels.Among the possibilities gaining traction are biofu

36、els(such as biodiesel),biogas(also known as renewable natural gas)and low-carbon hydrogen derivatives such as methanol and ammonia,as well as battery-powered electric vessels.For members of the First Movers Coalition(FMC)in particular,4 the focus is on scalable zero-emission fuels,5 which are curren

37、tly in the demonstration and early-deployment phase also known in the innovation literature as the“valley of death”.Options meeting the FMC commitment thus include methanol,produced using low-carbon hydrogen and sustainable carbon dioxide(biogenic,recycled,CO2 from direct air capture,etc.),ammonia,p

38、roduced with low-carbon hydrogen and nitrogen,battery-powered electric vessels and low-carbon hydrogen as a fuel itself.Methanol,in particular,has been gaining traction;in fact,carriers have placed orders for more than 180 methanol dual-fuel vessels,with more than 60%of the order being container ves

39、sels(illustrating that there are also still different challenges within each of the shipping segments,i.e.container ships,bulkers,tankers).The volume of fuel needed just for operating these 180+vessels entirely on methanol fuel would be up to 21 million tonnes of methanol per year(see Figure 1).Sepa

40、rately,ammonia as a marine fuel is attracting attention,especially as the industry looks towards 2030 and beyond.MAN Energy Solutions,a prominent ship-engine manufacturer,is currently working on a two-stroke ammonia engine,which it expects to be on the market by 2025.6 From a vessel-construction per

41、spective,Seaspan,together with the Mrsk Mc-Kinney Mller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping,recently received approval in principle for the design of a 15,000 twenty-foot equivalent(TEU)7 ammonia-powered container vessel.8 5Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Suppl

42、yZero-emission methanol fuel supply emerging to power methanol dual-fuel vessels on order but majority of projects remain pre-FIDFIGURE 1Note:Methanol volume estimated,based on vessels currently in the fleet and order book only(not forecasts),assuming 100%consumption goes to methanol(despite dual-fu

43、el engines).Consumption based on estimations of 2x consumption of regular fuel for methanol,based on data of average consumption per vessel type and size class.Source:World Fleet Register;press research;BCG hydrogen project database;BCG analysis9 mtpa zero-emission methanol capacity announced;howeve

44、r,95%remain pre-FIDZero-emission methanol capacity in mtpa024Pre-FIDPost-FIDConstructOperate86Pre-FEEDFEED180+methanol dual-fuel vessels on order,whose numbers continue to grow.to fuelin potential methanol demand(assuming 100%consumption)Up to21 mtpa0100200Number of methanol dual-fuel vessels on ord

45、erJune 2023September 2023September 2022March 2023As of September 2023+55+40+30The sobering reality is that methanol and all other zero-emission fuels are in short supply already,and the shortage is projected to get worse in the future.In fact,more than 95%of plans to produce these fuels have not yet

46、 crossed the final investment decision(FID)phase.FID refers to the point in a projects development cycle when the company(or companies)owning and/or operating the project has secured sufficient funding and is now approving capital investments to commence construction.The decision to invest capital i

47、n construction is made based on a thorough evaluation of demand and revenue risks,i.e.the sponsor is confident of being able to sell enough of the projects output at a price sufficient to repay financiers and yield satisfactory returns.Under the best of circumstances,moving a large-scale low-carbon

48、fuel production project up to and past FID stage is a major undertaking(see Figure 2).Currently it can take four years or more to reach FID and then another two to five years to start producing the fuels.Yet 2030 is only six years away.If a significant number of projects do not cross FID in the next

49、 couple of years,there is a risk of dual-fuel vessels on order still predominantly running on emissions-intensive fossil-based heavy fuel oil in 2030.By understanding the many barriers in the way of reaching FID and moving past these,the marine shipping industry,together with key stakeholders and se

50、ctors contributing to the shipping industry,can progress and accelerate the path to decarbonization.Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply6Large capital projects take six to nine years from start to finish with no challenges;FIDs need to happen as soon as p

51、ossible to achieve operability by 2030FIGURE 2Notes:1.FEED=Front-End Engineering Design;2.Timeline varies based on scale and location of facility;3.Projects can also be stopped or paused at every decision gate.Source:BCG analysis Decision Gate 1Decision Gate 2Decision Gate 3(FID)Commercial operation

52、 date(COD)Identify the business need or opportunity;frame activities for subsequent phasesIdentify and assess(1 year)Develop and consider alternatives that can exploit the business opportunity or satisfy the business needSelect(1 year)Define the selected opportunity with sufficient engineering and e

53、xecution planning to enable predictable cost,schedule and business outcome estimatesExecute engineering,procurement,transportation,fabrication,construction and completion/testing activities of facilityOperate the asset.During the asset life,likely many new projects needed to de-bottleneck,expand,upg

54、rade or renew the facility,each with its own stage-gate processProject development(pre-FID)Project implementation(post-FID)Decision Gate 1Business opportunity clearly defined,including a framing of subsequent activitiesDecision Gate 2Option that delivers optimal value selected for detailed designDec

55、ision Gate 3(FID)Decision to invest capital in construction made based on a thorough evaluation of demand and revenue risks,i.e.sponsor confident of ability to sell enough of the projects output at a price sufficient to repay financiers and yield satisfactory returnsKey evaluative outcome3Pre-feasib

56、ility studyKey evaluative inputFeasibility studyFEEDDefine(2 years)Operate and maintainPre-FEED1FEEDConstruct and execute2(2-5 years)Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply7Ten barriers limiting zero-emission shipping fuel project FID 1Interviews with decisi

57、on-makers from the shipping industry identified 10 key obstacles to financing and developing zero-emission fuel projects.Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply8To obtain a better understanding of what prevents zero-emission shipping fuel projects from getti

58、ng past FID,and what it will take to move forward,interviews were conducted with decision-makers from 12 private-sector companies with different vantage points along the shipping value chain,including traditional fuel producers,project developers,carriers and financiers.The interviews were combined

59、with a roundtable discussion at the London International Shipping Week in September 2023,with participants from 15 private,public and non-governmental organizations.The 10 identified barriers fall into five categories:customer and consumer demand;economics and finance;regulatory issues;supply-chain

60、and infrastructure enablers;and organizational factors(see Figure 3).Ten key barriers across five categories surfaced in 1:1s and live roundtable discussions with stakeholders across the shipping value chainFIGURE 3Customer and consumer demandEconomics and financeLack of clear demand signals with su

61、fficient willingness to pay:Methanol uptake volumes in dual-fuel ships remain uncertain.Companies struggle to absorb green premiums aloneExpectations gap between fuel producers and carriers on terms of offtake agreements:Friction on length(long term vs.spot),volume(how much)and price(what premiums a

62、re acceptable)12Lack of credible third-party cost estimates:Makes it difficult for financiers and offtakers to assess investments and contract options for different zero-emission fuel pathways Lack of fit-for-purpose financing instruments:Time horizons and risk appetite of existing financing options

63、 not suitable,e.g.PE fund life too short,infrastructure funds come in too late,insufficient pre-FID funding34Decision-making and risk appetite are limited by gaps in expertise:Decarbonization decisions and P&L do not always sit with the same team,creating friction and requiring new ways of working t

64、ogether within companies10Source:Interviews with maritime decarbonization decision-makers from private-sector companies along the value chain;London International Shipping Week roundtableOrganizationalfactorsLack of strong near-to mid-term mandates or a global price on carbon:Policies emerging(e.g.E

65、U,IMO)but need geographically reciprocal regulations to set a demand-side price and volume floorLack of standard definitions,methods and certifications:Hinders contracting terms,e.g.what defines“green”;how to measure,track and report emissions;how to assure qualityRegulatory issues56Supply chain and

66、 infrastructure enablersMethanol-and ammonia-specific risks:Access to biogenic CO2 for methanol,especially in locations close to cheap renewables,is getting tougher.Safety,especially for use as a marine fuel and handling at ports,is the biggest barrier for ammoniaCompetition and lack of alignment wi

67、th other sectors:Shipping competing against vs.collaborating with chemicals for methanol,fertilizers for ammonia and more broadly across sectors for H2 and CO2Zero-emission fuels infrastructure gap:Uncertainties on responsibility for last-mile logistics.Physical gap between promising e-fuel location

68、s and major ports the infrastructure still needs to be expanded789Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply91.1 Customer and consumer demandAn important factor for many carriers is not necessarily the higher cost of green fuel,but rather the need to ensure the

69、y can recover this cost from their customers and subsequently a thorough investigation that they indeed land a competitive green fuel contract,keeping them cost competitive with the other green shipping providers.Jens Andersen,Vice-President,and David Dupont-Mouritzen,Project Director,Copenhagen Inf

70、rastructure Partners Barrier#1:Lack of clear demand signals with sufficient willingness to pay Barrier#2:Expectations gap between fuel producers and carriers on terms of offtake agreementsFor all of the fuel producers and project developers interviewed it is still unclear how much methanol will actu

71、ally be used in the dual-fuel ships on order today.If they all burned nothing but methanol,as much as 21 million tonnes per annum would be required.Depending on market dynamics,however,and the degree to which carriers(and eventually their end customers)are willing to pay,the lower limit could be muc

72、h lower,making it difficult for fuel providers to have the confidence to make major investments.At the same time,for carriers,it is unclear when the desired zero-emission fuel will be made available,at what locations and in what volumes,and at what cost.Given these perceived uncertainties,carriers m

73、ay be hesitant to sign long-term fuel-offtake contracts.Historically,carriers have been used to consuming the cheapest fuel available to minimize their operational costs and maximize competitiveness in a relatively tight-margin industry.Given the much higher current costs of zero-emission fuels over

74、 conventional fossil-based heavy fuel oil,absorbing the“green premium”remains difficult for carriers,unless they can credibly pass down the higher costs to their end customers.Some acceptance by end customers of the need to pay a reasonable green premium is emerging,but the mechanisms are not develo

75、ped,and transparency is lacking on price levels.The latter is important,as producers need greater reassurance that customers will pay the premium required to make a project viable,and the carriers who buy the fuel are concerned about their relative cost advantage in terms of maintaining competitiven

76、ess vs.other carriers.Given the current lack of market liquidity for zero-emission fuels and the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars required to construct new zero-emission fuel production projects,fuel producers typically expect to be able to secure financing for production facilities(throu

77、gh internal investment committees or banks)only if they can show secured long-term revenues/cashflows to their investors.Firm fuel-offtake agreements with carriers that last 10 years or more are a common way for fuel producers to show secured cashflows for a project.Shorter-duration agreements lasti

78、ng seven to eight years with an option to negotiate are possible,but typically come with a price premium to account for the higher revenue risk for the supplier.This very quickly correlates with the barrier above on the willingness in the value chain to pay a premium and how to equitably split the a

79、dditional cost the transition will represent,especially in its initial development phase.Carriers today generally buy fuel on the spot market and are not used to entering into long-term fuel-offtake agreements.Many carriers also expect the cost of zero-emission fuel to drop significantly in the futu

80、re,which further limits their appetite to sign long-term contracts.There is some precedent of producers and carriers in the liquefied natural gas(LNG)world agreeing to long-term contracts,but such deals have largely been driven by government support and energy-security concerns.The length of offtake

81、 agreements thus ends up being a major point of contention between fuel producers and carriers,which,in turn,limits investment decisions.Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply101.2 Economics and finance Barrier#3:Lack of credible third-party cost estimatesG

82、iven that both the zero-emission fuel industry and the enabling technologies required are new,forecasting future costs is difficult,and confidence in such forecasts is low.The absence of credible estimates makes it difficult for carriers and financiers to assess different contracts and investments o

83、n a like-for-like basis.Because no engineering,procurement and construction(EPC)company has history or precedents in executing projects from end to end,any estimate of future costs is highly uncertain.Some developers end up revising the estimates,and this creates disparities among developers.The dif

84、ferences can create confusion across the value chain on what the real cost will be.Ultimately,overly optimistic estimates negatively affect conversations among developers and offtakers,creating concerns about credibility and deliverability of the end product,particularly at that cost.As the green hy

85、drogen and e-fuels business begins to grow,we are seeing a lack of consistency in supply-chain costs,feedstock costs and EPC costs.While the cost of projects will decrease with time as the industry is scaled,there is currently confusion among buyers on the credibility and deliverability of projects.

86、To solve this situation,some of the same changes are required that we at rsted saw when scaling the offshore wind industry 20 years ago.This includes predictable financial support for the first wave of projects,infrastructure buildout and offtake incentives.Olivia Breese,Senior Vice-President and Ch

87、ief Executive Officer,Power-to-X,rstedA few specialized zero-emission methanol developers have created standardized plant concepts with original equipment manufacturers(OEMs),which could potentially reduce cost uncertainties.However,these initial standardized plants will not be operational before 20

88、26 at the earliest.This limits the short-term opportunities for other projects under development,especially those with a 2030 target operation date,to use the findings and implement them in their own projects.These discrepancies can thus make it difficult for developers of more mature projects to at

89、tract investors and enter into long-term contracts with potential customers.A credible third-party view on the range of expected costs to construct and operate a zero-emission fuel production plant as well as set up distribution would be extremely helpful for financiers and offtakers to assess diffe

90、rent contract and investment options on a comparable basis.Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply11 Barrier#4:Lack of fit-for-purpose financing instruments Finding sources of funding with the appropriate risk appetite and dollar investment size to develop z

91、ero-emission fuel projects remains a challenge.Venture-capital funding(with a high risk appetite but small dollar investment size)is typically available at the pre-development stage exclusively for start-ups,and traditional project financing(with a large dollar investment size but low risk appetite)

92、can be found post-FID.But that leaves a gap in the middle.To close it,conventional investors such as private equity(PE),commercial banks and infrastructure investors have to go beyond their investment expectations and risk appetite to invest and thus accelerate the market.For PE firms,that means ext

93、ending their funding periods beyond the typical exit cycle to account for the long development timelines of these capital-intensive projects.And commercial banks,as well as infrastructure funds,will need to invest earlier in the cycle ideally before FID to get a better deal and possibly the right to

94、 run the projects finances.Meanwhile,current macroeconomics and the high-interest rate environment is not making the financing situation any easier.Some companies are starting to explore innovative financing options to spread the risk,including tax-equity partnerships,blended finance and special-pur

95、pose vehicles(SPVs),but it remains a relatively nascent space.Some others have also explored the possibility of combining concessional lending,such as is available from development banks and/or export credit agencies,to bring down the overall cost of capital.However,many are still hesitant about con

96、cessionary lending,as they perceive that the requirements are not always fit for purpose and fear such capital will add extra bureaucratic complexity.Project developers should not shy away from exploring multilateral development banks like IFC,IDB,EBRD,FMO,etc.as they can remove political and countr

97、y risk to make the projects more bankable.In addition,export credit agencies like EKF of Denmark or NEXI and JBIC of Japan not only provide low-interest loans(particularly for green development equipment),but they can fund high-risk feasibility studies and are important when it comes to mitigation o

98、f political and commercial risks and the provision of trade,investment and loan insurance.Ironically,as global warming progresses,insurance is becoming harder to secure to make a project bankable.Alicia Eastman,President,InterContinental EnergyA significant global IMO-led carbon tax on fossil fuels

99、will enable deep-sea shipping decarbonization.Unfortunately,without a carbon tax that unlocks demand,we are unlikely to see sufficient green fuel projects materialize in time for industry decarbonization requirements.Rasmus Bach Nielsen,Global Head of Fuel Decarbonisation,Trafigura Group1.3 Regulato

100、ry issues Barrier#5:Lack of strong near-to mid-term mandates or a global price on carbonThere are several policy mandates in place governing the decarbonization of the shipping industry,including:FuelEU Maritimes GHG reduction goal of 2%by 2025 and 6%by 2030;the IMOs goal of increasing the uptake of

101、 zero or near-zero GHG emission technologies,fuels and/or energy by 5%,striving for 10%,by 2030;and the European Unions Emissions Trading System for shipping,which will come into effect in 2024.These efforts remain in their infancy,however,and,except for the IMO mandates,are largely regional.This hi

102、nders firming up demand for zero-emission shipping fuels and the required supply.Without a price on carbon or policy mandates that cover the industry and take its global nature into account,there is limited incentive for the shipping industry to decarbonize.Having the certainty that a global price o

103、n carbon would come into force at a given point would also help early zero-emission fuel projects to get off the ground by setting a price and volume floor,and thus acting as a firm backstop for demand.Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply12As part of its

104、Marine Environment Protection Committee(MEPC 80)resolution,the IMO has committed to developing a maritime GHG emissions pricing mechanism by 2027.Hence,for the next 18 months or so,stakeholders need to work together to identify and define a fit-for-purpose instrument that helps to accelerate shippin

105、gs transition.We need the proactive support of governments around the world to close the cost gap through supply-side and demand-side actions.First,by providing incentives that lower the cost of green fuel production,this will promote the rapid scaling-up of these new technologies.And second,by crea

106、ting a strong and visible demand-pull through mandates and clear carbon-pricing signals.Together this can kick-start the industry to drive faster scale-up and better climate outcomes.Brian Davis,Chief Executive Officer of C2X,a global green methanol developer backed by A.P.Moller Holding and A.P.Mol

107、ler MaerskFor example,if the Nordic countries were to insist that any cruise ship coming into the region had to be low-carbon or electric,then the carriers would likely go out and start testing how much more the customers would be willing to pay for it.Claes Fredriksson,Founder and Chief Executive O

108、fficer,Liquid WindEven regional mandates and/or directives could play a role in the long and short term by forcing carriers to test how much more customers would be willing to pay.Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply13 Barrier#6:Lack of standard definitio

109、ns,methods and certifications Barrier#7:Methanol-and ammonia-specific risks A further cause of uncertainty among carriers and investors is the lack of industry-standard definitions for the resulting zero-emission fuels.For example,it is possible that the definitions and requirements of low-carbon so

110、urces of feedstock for zero-emission fuels,including CO2(whether biogenic,from direct air capture DAC sources,fossil-fuel-based or recycled from e-fuels)and H2(additionality,temporal and geographic correlation)9 could change over time.10 This could risk the zero-emission status of the planned fuels

111、after a project has gone past FID and entered construction.There is also an urgent need to pivot from the often vague green/blue/grey colour schemes now commonly used to define sustainability to more scientific frameworks based on emissions intensity.This could also help harmonize differences in req

112、uirements among emerging regional policy frameworks such as the EU RED II and US IRA to account for shippings global nature.The IMO is currently working on a goal-based marine fuel standard regulating the phased reduction of the marine fuels GHG intensity,which can solve this problem for the long te

113、rm,but this is not expected to be ready until 2025 and would then come into force by 2027.Broader consensus on this issue will be essential to boost investor confidence and get projects off the ground.Lack of clear definitions and requirements could render projects obsolete or result in significant

114、scope changes to meet new zero-emission requirements and thus risk investments in a project.James Walsh,Senior Development Manager,Power-to-X,Mainstream Renewable PowerFinally,accurate emissions-accounting methodologies and certification schemes for measuring,tracking and reporting emissions will be

115、 needed to back up emissions-reduction claims and provide quality assurance of the fuel itself.Approaches to assuring the GHG chain of custody of zero-emission fuels are also not ready or fully accepted.The current incompatibility between transitory tools such as carbon attribution mechanisms throug

116、h,for example,book-and-claim,and the GHG Protocol11 creates uncertainty with carriers as well as shippers if they cannot claim the GHG benefits of zero-emission fuels in their sustainability reporting.1.4 Supply-chain and infrastructure enablersFor methanol,access to biogenic CO2 as a feedstock,part

117、icularly in locations close to where cheap renewables are also available,is a known challenge.Until recently,developers of zero-emission fuels were able to access biogenic CO2(e.g.from a bioethanol facility or pulp and paper mill)cheaply or even at no cost.Now,however,they are competing with develop

118、ers of carbon capture and storage(CCS)technology for tax incentives in the United States and elsewhere.Adequate supplies of biogenic CO2 are likely to remain available until 2035,after which the sector will have to consider using recycled CO2 or adopting emerging technologies such as DAC.In the case

119、 of ammonia,access to CO2 is not a problem.However,ammonia is toxic,and safety is the biggest concern,especially when it comes to its use as a marine fuel and issues associated with its handling at ports.On the vessel design front,several sea trials are in the works,including Seaspans 15,000 TEU amm

120、onia-powered container ship,to be launched by 2030.12 In terms of using ammonia as a fuel,the Global Center for Maritime Decarbonization is conducting a number of pilot studies on ammonia bunkering safety.13 More time and positive sea trials are needed,however,before ammonia can be considered fully

121、safe to use as a fuel in marine environments.Additionally,there is the broader question regarding the preferred long-term fuel choice for maritime decarbonization:methanol vs.ammonia vs.something else.Given the magnitude of the problem,it is likely that all options will be needed,but,unfortunately,d

122、ue to the limited availability of financing and resources,these options end up competing with each other.Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply14 Barrier#8:Competition and lack of alignment with other sectorsThe shipping sector is already competing with sev

123、eral other hard-to-abate industries for scarce supplies of feedstocks and end-molecules.For example,the chemicals sector is able to directly substitute fossil methanol with zero-emission methanol as a way to remove fossil-carbon inputs in its value chains,and the agricultural sector needs low-carbon

124、 ammonia to produce fertilizers.The biogenic CO2 needed as a feedstock for zero-emission methanol could also be sequestered to generate carbon credits or used to make other competing products such as synthetic aviation fuel.And the supply of low-carbon hydrogen needed could have alternative uses in,

125、among others,the aviation,iron and steel and chemicals industries.If other sectors have a larger appetite and are willing to pay higher prices than the shipping industry,this could potentially limit the supply available for zero-emission shipping fuel buyers.However,on the flip side,it will have a p

126、ositive impact on supply development.Other industries interested in the same product can increase producers confidence in their investments by diversifying offtaker risks especially appealing to those who find investing only in shipping fuel too risky.For example,it is possible to imagine a blended

127、set of offtakers where the baseload of production output goes to a customer in shipping,and the remaining production volumes are fed to more cyclical end users in chemicals.Although the potential demand for ammonia in multiple sectors as a key element to decarbonize said sectors has been raised by s

128、ome as a concern regarding availability of clean ammonia,the reality is that large-scale production investments are actually facilitated by combining demand in multiple sectors.The synergetic effect between sectors should be seen as a positive towards the availability of ammonia and scalability of c

129、lean ammonia production.Magnus Ankarstrand,President,Yara Clean AmmoniaFuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply15 Barrier#9:Zero-emission fuels infrastructure gap Barrier#10:Decision-making and risk appetite are limited by gaps in expertise Getting zero-emiss

130、ion fuels onto ships remains a complex challenge.The industry standard for determining whether suppliers or offtakers handle last-mile logistics has not yet been fully established.Offtakers currently do not engage in this and lack the capability to do so.Traditional bunkering companies could play a

131、key role here with respect to bridging the gaps,but this logistics element for zero-emission fuels is still far from developed or tested.In todays conventional fuel world,the commercial practice is supplier arranging the logistics to deliver the fuel onto the vessel.However,with the zero-emission fu

132、el industry still in its infancy,it is not decided whether the fuel producers or carriers will arrange the logistics from the production site adding another difficulty when discussing offtake agreements.Tatsuro Watanabe,Chief Environment Sustainability Officer,Mitsui O.S.K.Lines(MOL)From a cargo-own

133、er perspective,the security of supply,location of bunkering and last-mile delivery are all quite critical.Addressing these barriers is essential to raise the level of confidence in investing in offtake projects.Rashpal Bhatti,Vice-President Maritime and Supply Chain Excellence,BHPMany customers and

134、offtakers worry that unreliable last-mile logistics could significantly affect the security of their fuel supplies.Another concern is the often considerable physical distance between the most promising locations for zero-emission fuel production such as Chile,South Africa or Morocco and the major po

135、rts where network-based shipping lines(container and cruise)and shipping segments such as tanker and bulk are bunkering today.Changes in these patterns can occur,but in all cases there would still be a need to transport either hydrogen derivatives or finished fuel products to other locations,similar

136、 to the way bunker fuel oil is transported today.The international transport of hydrogen derivatives is already part of international maritime trade,so there is already a basis to build upon and expand much further.1.5 Organizational factorsIn several instances,organizations that have an ambition to

137、 engage with maritime decarbonization or have made a pledge to do so lack the expertise to engage with the complexities of developing,procuring and financing zero-emission shipping fuels.Without the right level of expertise,the risks associated with funding and procurement can be poorly managed,posi

138、ng barriers to investment.Further,in many cases decision-making on decarbonization occurs within specialized sustainability teams,creating conflicts and misalignment with commercial teams that might be responsible for profit and loss(P&L).As such,organizations transitioning from ambition to executio

139、n will require a significant change in organizational mindset(sustainability should be included as an inherent component of everyones day-to-day work),operating models(ideally,leaders making zero-emission shipping fuel decisions should be fully empowered;GHG reduction should be a part of leadership

140、key performance indicators KPIs)and upskilling of employees(what are the different options?how do they compare?what is the best way to market,price and sell green products at a premium?).Enhancing collaboration among various business functions will be critical in navigating the transition.Fuelling t

141、he Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply16Charting the course2The list of barriers should not be seen as a reason to do nothing but as an opportunity for first movers and fast followers to act in new collaborative ways to isolate,share and eliminate risks and turn less

142、ons learned and relationships built into a competitive advantage.Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply17The barriers to developing and scaling zero-emission shipping fuels pose a daunting challenge,particularly given the many pieces that must come together

143、 in terms of investment,procurement and policy.Ultimately,however,these barriers are not presented as a reason to do nothing but rather provide an opportunity early adopters of solutions can collaborate in new ways to shape the green shipping market of the future to their advantage,and to everyone e

144、lses.To achieve a decarbonized shipping industry in the long term,it is paramount to formulate regulations,standards and government incentives.Ideally,any actions taken should drive economic certainty for projects and enable the mobilization of investments and funds.While the sector is engaging with

145、 and supporting national and regional initiatives and governments,as well as regulatory bodies such as the IMO and the International Organization for Standardization(ISO),it is evident that greater clarity in standards and increased regulatory support is urgently required.It is important to remember

146、 that getting the first few projects off the ground will be critically important for long-term success,as doing so drives learning by doing at scale.There is no need to tackle every barrier simultaneously to kick-start pioneering projects.Stakeholders including fuel producers,project developers,carr

147、iers,cargo owners,bunkering companies,port authorities,financiers,governments and others along the value chain,as illustrated in Figure 4 can unite under the leadership of a visionary integrator.Their mission:to identify and eliminate risks in innovative ways,and uncover collaborative approaches tha

148、t position them strategically for the future not just of shipping but of a transformed global low-carbon market.Collaborations among publicprivate actors across the value chain needed to catalyse the first few zero-emission shipping fuel projectsFIGURE 4SupplyDemandEcosystem enablersIntegratorFuel p

149、roducersFeedstock suppliersTransport and storage ownersBunkering companiesTradersPort authorities and operators Publicprivate financiers and insurersIndustry coalitionsGovernment pairs with reciprocal policiesStandards and certification agenciesFreight forwardersCargoownersOther sectors CarriersSour

150、ce:BCG analysis Barriers are not presented as a reason to do nothing but rather as an opportunity to collaborate in new ways to shape the green shipping market of the future.Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply18New types of collaboration are starting to

151、take place but need first movers to take bold action to accelerate the decarbonization of shipping.Some of the collaborative solutions emerging to overcome the identified barriers are outlined in Figure 5.A set of interrelated actions could address demand uncertainty,discover price premiums,share ri

152、sks and unlock the first few projectsFIGURE 5Engage and support regulatory bodies(e.g.IMO,ISO)to help formulate clear policies and standardsPublic-private demand aggregation to drive offtake agreementsRun government-backed reverse auctionsRun collaborative requests for proposal(RfPs)Collaborations a

153、cross value chains and other sectors,ideally on green product developmentExample:Amazon and Inditex partnering with Maersk to use Maersks“ECO Delivery”ocean logistics offering Test green go-to-market strategiesUnify demand across sectorsCost sharing and transparencyExample:Amazon and other CPG brand

154、s issue RfP for zero-emission shipping services,with calls for 600,000 20-foot container equivalent over three yearsIntegrators driving strategic green corridor focusThird-party integrator drives and facilitates collaborationPrioritize attractive green corridors with government supportExample:Uptake

155、 of zero-and near-zero emission fuels being studied by the ShanghaiLos Angeles and SingaporeRotterdam green corridors for container ships as well as the West AustraliaEast Asia green corridor for iron ore shippingNon-traditional contracting and finance mechanismsExample:Blended finance stack(combine

156、d debt,equity,government incentives,equity for offtakes,etc.)for NEOM Green H2 and H2 Green Steel)Equity for strategic buyersSpecial Purpose Vehicle(SPV)Development banksExport credit agenciesGovernment incentivesCapacity paymentsDynamic pricingNon-recourse financeSource:Interviews with maritime dec

157、arbonization decision-makers from private-sector companies along the value chain;London International Shipping Week roundtable;press releases;company websites;BCG analysis2.1 Collaborations across value chains and other sectors,ideally on green product developmentThird-party integrators could pull t

158、ogether demand as well as drive transparent cost sharing across the value chain for projects in fuel production and bunkering.Such arrangements could help test new“green go-to-market”product strategies and the green premiums available for them resulting in believable price signals,which are currentl

159、y lacking.This could also help bridge gaps and address friction points between stakeholders in the value chain around prices,contract lengths and overall terms.Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply19Collaboration along the value chain is essential so that

160、we can distribute the cost of zero-emission fuels to the customers willing to pay.Olivia Breese,Senior Vice-President and Chief Executive Officer,Power-to-X,rstedAs a starting point,companies could pursue regions(e.g.EU,US),sub-segments(e.g.container vessels)and end sectors(e.g.consumer-packaged goo

161、ds,retail,e-commerce)with the most favourable regulatory and market conditions.Some leaders in this space are already pursuing opportunities along these lines.Amazon and Inditex(the parent company of fashion brands such as Zara and Massimo Dutti),for example,have formed a partnership with Maersk to

162、use Maersks“ECO Delivery”ocean logistics offering for their cargo.Further,working with potential customers for zero-emission methanol and ammonia outside the shipping industry,including chemicals and fertilizer companies,could help hedge end-market risk and make investments more palatable for invest

163、ors who do not want to bet fully on zero-emission shipping fuels just yet.2.2 Publicprivate demand aggregation to drive offtake agreementsBringing collaborative fuel-procurement agreements from conception to request-for-proposal(RfP)processes in order to increase offtake volumes could help drive dem

164、and and price discovery,especially as potential purchasers remain hesitant to sign long-term contracts.Examples include ZEMBA,a purchasing consortium that recently released an RfP to source green shipping services for cargo owners;a similar collaborative approach could be used for zero-emission fuel

165、 procurement.Reverse auctions,where fuel producers bid for the prices at which they are willing to sell different volumes of their zero-emission shipping fuel,backed by governments,could be another powerful approach to volume and price discovery,and associated policies could mitigate any anti-trust

166、risks that might potentially arise when big carriers start aggregating their demand.Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply202.3 Integrators driving strategic green corridor focus2.4 Non-traditional contracting and finance mechanismsThe continued development

167、 of green corridors in the most attractive production locations and shipping routes,with reciprocal government and policy backing at end points,linked with the development of infrastructure that supports this approach,will be critical to success.Bringing value-chain partners together through green c

168、orridors working with a coordinated approach towards infrastructure and policies,as well as transparent cost-sharing across all partners,is a way forward.Laure Baratgin,Head of Commercial Operations,Rio TintoThe key port locations and the corridors themselves enable multiple stakeholders to particip

169、ate,test and align on decarbonization options,logistical details and policy enablers across jurisdictions.Some current examples include the ShanghaiLos Angeles and SingaporeRotterdam green corridors for container ships and the West AustraliaEast Asia green corridor for iron ore.14,15,16 The role of

170、green corridors,also related to demand aggregation,is significant and,besides the other benefits highlighted above,can help create more certainty about what volume of fuel is needed and at what locations for which vessels,sending a very strong demand signal to fuel producers in a specific geographic

171、 location.A wide range of innovative approaches to contracting and financing for zero-emission shipping fuels are possible.These include:minimum revenue or capacity payments combined with a volume-based payment(similar to the approach used for power plants and pipelines for natural gas),dynamic cont

172、ract pricing(where,for example,an input factor such as electricity is used to recalibrate the contract price,thus better sharing the cost uncertainties and risks between suppliers and offtakers),offering equity stakes to strategic buyers in lieu of debt or contract payments,combinations of senior an

173、d junior debt,17 non-recourse financing,SPVs and government incentives such as supply-side subsidies to reduce production costs,loan loss guarantees,etc.In fact,most industry leaders engaged in this study expressed a willingness to explore novel risk and reward-sharing mechanisms to get the zero-emi

174、ssion shipping fuel market going.In some cases,they were also willing to open up and explain their cost structures to offtakers,to provide greater transparency on the green premium which,in turn,could help persuade offtakers to sign long-term deals,thereby making up for the lack of a market index,so

175、mething that will be needed as the market develops.Interviewees also pointed to the possibility of tapping into concessionary lending available through publicprivate institutions these are currently an underused resource due to lack of awareness and difficulty in navigating the process.Examples incl

176、ude development banks such as the US International Development Finance Corporation,the International Finance Corporation,the European Investment Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank,as well as export credit agencies(ECAs);such funds could come not only at lower-than-market rates but also sti

177、mulate further public-and private-sector investments by lending credibility to the project.In some cases,development banks might also be able to provide extra resources to project developers and be willing to write off the cost of pre-FID phases,further minimizing risk.As an example,the NEOM,ACWA Po

178、wer and Air Products green H2 project in Saudi Arabia and the H2 Green Steel project in Sweden have explored some of these combinations and could serve as an inspiration for participants in the shipping sector.In the first project,an SPV was established,with Air Products committing to a 30-year offt

179、ake agreement,and a combination of 23 local,regional and international banks and investment funds participated with the finance stack,split into 20%equity and 80%debt.For H2 Green Steels large-scale green steel plant in Sweden,more than 30 publicprivate investors participated through a combination o

180、f equity investments into H2 Green Steel as a company and debt finance for building the plant in Sweden.Some offtakers were enticed by the equity upside,with the Swedish and German government grants supporting the overall deal structure.Most industry leaders engaged in this study expressed a willing

181、ness to explore novel risk/reward-sharing mechanisms to get the zero-emission shipping fuel market going.Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply21Full speed ahead3Cross value-chain collaboration,including the sharing of innovative finance and contract models

182、,is needed to reduce investment risks and drive the development of zero-emission shipping fuels.Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply22Overcoming barriers to the development of zero-emission shipping fuels will be no easy task.It will take willingness on t

183、he part of all publicprivate stakeholders to band together not only to reduce the long-term risk of their investments but also to act before all risks have been eliminated.The persistent plea to work across the value chain to solve what is one of the maritime industrys most significant challenges is

184、 justified.Many of the barriers outlined in this paper require unprecedented collaboration across unconventional partnerships.Overcoming these obstacles involves going beyond mere calls for cooperation and partnership;there is a need to actively share concrete models,such as innovative contract and

185、finance structures,to drive the industry towards success.The shipping industrys decarbonization goals are clear,and virtually all stakeholders,especially the first movers,are agreed on the urgent need to meet them by facilitating development of the first few projects.Now is the time to weigh anchor

186、and set sail.Fuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply23ContributorsAcknowledgementsWorld Economic Forum Mette AsmussenLead,Maritime Sector InitiativesRosa Esi EnnisonSpecialist,Freight DecarbonizationTakahiro FurusakiProject FellowBoston Consulting GroupKathe

187、rine DuffPrincipal Peter Jonathan JamesonManaging Director and PartnerSumit VermaConsultantThe World Economic Forum would like to express special gratitude to the following individuals for their contribution and insights shared during interviews.Organizations interviewed and acknowledged in this rep

188、ort should not be taken as agreeing with every finding or recommendation.Jens AndersenVice-President,Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners Concepcin Boo AriasDirector of Engagement,Public&Regulatory Affairs,A.P.Mller-MrskLaure BaratginHead of Commercial Operations,Rio TintoGabriel CotrimSenior Commerci

189、al Manager,Power-to-X,rstedBrian DavisChief Executive Officer,C2XDavid Dupont-MouritzenProject Director,Copenhagen Infrastructure PartnersAlexandra EbbinghausGeneral Manager Decarbonisation,Shell Marine,ShellAlicia EastmanPresident,InterContinental EnergyClaes FredrikssonFounder and Chief Executive

190、Officer,Liquid WindNirva GhelaniMaritime Decarbonisation Lead,Maritime&Supply Chain Excellence,BHPMathias Borgbo GydesenHead of Commercial Development,Power-to-X,rstedTessa MajorVice-President Bunkering,Port Relationships&Regulations,Yara Clean AmmoniaRasmus Bach NielsenGlobal Head of Fuel Decarboni

191、sation,Trafigura GroupGarrett RipaSenior Manager Strategy,Marine&Logistics,Rio TintoKatrine StenvangSenior Manager Market Development,Power-to-X,rstedTatsuro WatanabeChief Environment Sustainability Officer,Mitsui O.S.K.Lines(MOL)James WalshSenior Development Manager,Power-to-X,Mainstream Renewable

192、PowerFurther,we would like to express gratitude to the following organizations for participating in and sharing insights during a roundtable discussion at the London International Shipping Week.ABS,Aspen Institute,BP,Citi,Global Maritime Forum,University College London,InterContinental Energy,Liquid

193、 Wind,Macquarie Capital,Mrsk Mc-Kinney Mller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping,MOL,rsted,Rio Tinto,Shell,US State DepartmentFuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply24ProductionLaurence Denmark Creative Director,Studio MikoXander Harper Designer,Studio MikoAliso

194、n Moore EditorOliver Turner Designer,Studio MikoWe would also like to thank the individuals below for their overall insights,stimulating discussions and a peer review of this report.Noam BoussidanManager,Policy Engagement and Regional Action,World Economic ForumJustin BakerConsultant,Boston Consulti

195、ng GroupMarina ColomboManager,Transforming Industrial Ecosystems,World Economic ForumKatherine CoteSenior Knowledge Analyst,Boston Consulting GroupChris FountasConsultant,Boston Consulting GroupMogens HolmPartner and Associate Director,Boston Consulting GroupCornelius PieperManaging Director and Sen

196、ior Partner,Boston Consulting GroupRob van RietInterim Head,First Movers Coalition;Senior Advisor,Centre for Nature and Climate World Economic ForumFuelling the Future of Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply25Endnotes1.Faber,J.,et al.,Fourth International Maritime Organization

197、Greenhouse Gas Study 2020,MEPC 75/7/15,2020:https:/www.imo.org/en/ourwork/Environment/Pages/Fourth-IMO-Greenhouse-Gas-Study-2020.aspx.2.United Nations Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD),UNCTAD Review of Maritime Transport 2022:Navigating Stormy Waters:https:/unctad.org/rmt2022#:text=Riding%

198、20on%20the%20surge%20in,the%203.8%25%20decline%20in%202020.3.International Energy Agency(IEA),“International Shipping”:https:/www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/international-shipping.4.The First Movers Coalition membership base spans both carriers and cargo owners,with the member companies having

199、committed to:(1)carriers:“At least 5%(on an energy basis)of our deep-sea shipping will be powered by zero-emission fuels by 2030”;(2)cargo owners:“At least 10%of the volume of our goods shipped via deep-sea shipping will be on ships using zero-emission fuels by 2030,reaching 100%by 2040.”For the lat

200、est FMC shipping commitment,see:First Movers Coalition,“Shipping”:https:/www.weforum.org/first-movers-coalition/sectors.5.“Zero-emission fuel”as defined in Getting to Zero Coalition,“Definition of Zero Carbon Energy Sources”:https:/www.globalmaritimeforum.org/content/2019/09/Getting-to-Zero-Coalitio

201、n_Zero-carbon-energy-sources.pdf.6.Kristiansen,T.,“MAN Expects to Put Ammonia Engine Up for Sale in Late 2025”,Energy Watch,12 April 2023:https:/ twenty-foot equivalent,is a unit of cargo capacity used for container ports and ships.8.Habibic,A.,“ABS Greenlights Ammonia-Fueled Containership Design by

202、 Seascape and Partners”,Offshore Energy,26 July 2023:https:/www.offshore-energy.biz/abs-greenlights-ammonia-fueled-containership-design-by-seaspan-and-partners/.9.As per the EU Delegated Act Criteria(for more details,see European Parliament,“EU Rules for Renewable Hydrogen”:https:/www.europarl.europ

203、a.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/747085/EPRS_BRI(2023)747085_EN.pdf):additionality refers to H2 producers having to make sure that the electricity used to run the electrolyzer is matched by the production of renewable electricity in the same installation or through a renewables power purchase agreement

204、(PPA)with operators producing renewable electricity.However,the installation producing renewable electricity must not have been in operation for more than 36 months before the electrolyzer,and it must not have received support in the form of operating aid or investment aid;temporal correlation refer

205、s to H2 producers having to ensure that renewable electricity generation and H2 production coincide temporally.Until 31 December 2029,hydrogen has to be produced in the same calendar month as the renewable electricity produced under the PPA,or from renewable electricity from a new storage asset dire

206、ctly connected to either the renewable electricity generator or the electrolyzer,charged in the same calendar month.From 1 January 2030,H2 has to be produced during the same one-hour period as the renewable electricity,or from renewable electricity from a co-located new storage asset that has been c

207、harged during the same one-hour period in which the electricity under the PPA was produced;geographical correlation refers to H2 producers having to make sure the additional renewables is either:(1)in the same bidding zone as the electrolyzer,or(2)in an interconnected bidding zone with electricity p

208、rices in the day-ahead market equal or higher than the bidding zone where the hydrogen is produced,or(3)in an offshore zone interconnected with the electrolyzer bidding zone.10.So far,the European Union,through its Delegated Act pursuant to RED II Article 27(3)and 28(5),has led the field in providin

209、g definitions for H2 and CO2 sources in scope for e-fuels.However,they are only regionally binding and do not account for the global nature of shipping.The IMO is expected to come up with industry-wide shipping-specific definitions and guidance,but not until 2025.11.Greenhouse Gas Protocol:https:/gh

210、gprotocol.org/.12.Dixon,G.,“Containerships:Seaspan Expects First Big Ammonia Container Ship on the Water by 2030”,Trade Winds,25 September 2023:https:/ Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation,Ammonia Bunkering Pilot Safety Study,2023:https:/www.gcformd.org/ammonia-bunkering-safety-study.14.The Maritime

211、Executive,“CaliforniaShanghai Green Shipping Corridor Outlines Implementation Plan”,22 September 2023:https:/maritime- Maritime Executive,“Worlds Longest Green Corridor Planned Between Singapore and Rotterdam”,2 August 2022:https:/maritime- Maritime Forum,“Maritime Industry Joins Forces with Leading

212、 Global Miners in Support of AustraliaEast Asia Iron Ore Green Corridor”,6 April 2022:https:/www.globalmaritimeforum.org/press/maritime-industry-joins-forces-with-leading-global-miners-in-support-of-australia-east-asia-iron-ore-green-corridor-2.17.Senior and junior debt refers to differences in repa

213、yment priority if a firm faces bankruptcy or liquidation.Senior debt is often secured and more likely to be paid back whereas junior debt is not secured and is more of a risk.This also means that senior debt comes in at a lower rate than junior debt,given the lower risk factor.Fuelling the Future of

214、 Shipping:Key Barriers to Scaling Zero-Emission Fuel Supply26World Economic Forum9193 route de la CapiteCH-1223 Cologny/GenevaSwitzerland Tel.:+41(0)22 869 1212Fax:+41(0)22 786 2744contactweforum.orgwww.weforum.orgThe World Economic Forum,committed to improving the state of the world,is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation.The Forum engages the foremost political,business and other leaders of society to shape global,regional and industry agendas.