DNV’s tenth edition of Maritime Forecast to 2050 arrives at a moment when the shipping industry has already committed billions of dollars to alternative-fuel vessels, yet still lacks clarity over the global regulations, fuel availability and carbon prices that will ultimately determine whether those investments deliver an economic return.

The headline figures illustrate the scale of that uncertainty. Global supply of low-greenhouse-gas fuels could reach a theoretical maximum of 270 million tonnes of oil equivalent, or Mtoe, by 2030, although DNV cautions that actual supply will probably be significantly lower because many announced projects have yet to reach final investment decisions. Shipping’s demand for these fuels could range from only 4 Mtoe to 22 Mtoe in 2030, widening to between 33 Mtoe and 185 Mtoe by 2050.

The difference between the upper and lower 2050 estimates is more than fivefold. It is driven largely by one unresolved variable: whether international shipping eventually operates under an effective global greenhouse-gas regime or continues to rely primarily on regional measures such as the EU Emissions Trading System and FuelEU Maritime.

At the same time, the share of alternative-fuel-capable tonnage in the world fleet, excluding LNG carriers, has risen from just 0.4% in 2020 to 5.2% by August 2026. Yet much of that technical capability remains underutilized, and most of the LNG and methanol consumed by ships today is still produced from fossil feedstocks. The industry has started investing in the transition, but its ships, fuel supply chains and regulations are developing at different speeds.

Four regulatory futures replace the assumption of a single pathway

One of the most consequential changes in DNV’s 2026 report is its decision to analyse four separate regulatory scenarios instead of building its outlook around a relatively predictable global pathway.

The International Maritime Organization’s Net-Zero Framework was approved at MEPC 83 in April 2025 but failed to secure adoption at the extraordinary MEPC session in October. The meeting was adjourned for one year amid disagreements over the IMO Net-Zero Fund, revenue collection and the distribution of proceeds. Technical work has continued on lifecycle emissions, fuel certification, near-zero-emission technologies and the treatment of onboard carbon capture, but the eventual structure and timeline of the framework remain uncertain.

DNV’s first scenario assumes that the current Net-Zero Framework is adopted in December 2026 without major changes to the MARPOL Annex VI text. It would enter into force in April 2028, with 2029 likely to become the first implementation year. Under this outcome, the EU would be expected to align FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS with the global regime to avoid double payment.

The second scenario assumes a revised compromise framework, approved in December 2026 and adopted in 2027, with implementation beginning no earlier than 2030. The third assumes that the existing framework is rejected and the IMO begins negotiating a new mechanism, potentially without the more controversial economic elements. A replacement system could be adopted in 2030 and enter into force in 2032, while the EU strengthens its own regulations and other jurisdictions introduce similar regional measures.

The fourth scenario involves rejection of the Net-Zero Framework followed by prolonged political gridlock at the IMO. Existing measures would remain, but no major new global greenhouse-gas regulation would emerge.

These scenarios turn regulatory uncertainty into a quantifiable business risk. A ship ordered today may remain in service well beyond 2050. Its commercial performance will depend on carbon prices, eligible fuel pathways, access to compliant fuels, financing conditions, charterer preferences and restrictions on technologies such as open-loop scrubbers. A vessel optimized for one regulatory future could become substantially less competitive under another.

Regional regulation is already shaping commercial decisions

Uncertainty at the IMO has not stopped the regulatory transition. DNV estimates that the EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime already affect approximately 10% to 15% of global fleet fuel consumption.

Since 1 January 2026, shipping companies have been required to surrender allowances for 100% of emissions covered by the EU ETS. Methane and nitrous oxide have also entered the system, increasing the importance of actual engine emissions and full greenhouse-gas performance rather than CO₂ alone.

FuelEU Maritime is beginning to influence both fuel procurement and compliance trading. For the 2025 compliance year, approximately 91% of covered ships joined a compliance pool. Around 1.6% borrowed compliance from a future year, while 3.5% still recorded a deficit after using the available flexibility mechanisms. FuelEU surplus units have already developed a market value, and the regulation is encouraging long-term offtake agreements for biofuels and synthetic fuels.

DNV’s emissions analysis also demonstrates how national and regional initiatives could influence a large part of international shipping. Based on 2025 AIS data for ships above 5,000 GT—and counting 100% of domestic emissions plus 50% of emissions from incoming and outgoing voyages—China accounted for an estimated 17% of global shipping CO₂ emissions. The EU and European Economic Area accounted for 14%, while the United States represented 9%.

Policy developments in these three markets alone could affect a substantial proportion of the global fleet. A fragmented transition, however, would expose owners to multiple emissions boundaries, certification systems, reporting requirements and compliance instruments.

Energy efficiency offers the clearest near-term business case

With future fuel prices and regulations uncertain, DNV identifies energy efficiency as the most immediate and broadly resilient decarbonization option available to shipowners.

Under sufficiently strong greenhouse-gas regulation and pricing, energy-efficiency measures and speed reductions could lower global fleet energy consumption by as much as 16% in 2030 compared with a business-as-usual scenario. The reduction could reach 25% to 28% by 2050.

A 16% saving in 2030 would represent approximately 40 million tonnes of fuel and 120 million tonnes of CO₂-equivalent emissions. That is comparable to removing the energy consumption of the world’s 2,500 largest ships—or approximately 55,000 of the smallest ships above 400 GT. At an assumed fuel price of $580 per tonne, the annual saving would amount to roughly $23 billion. The economic value would be even greater when vessels begin consuming more expensive low-GHG fuels.

DNV illustrates the retrofit opportunity through a 5,000-TEU containership built in 2013. A combination of bow optimization, a propeller retrofit and a propeller boss cap fin could reduce fuel consumption by approximately 16%, at a total investment cost of around $2.35 million.

If the work were completed during the vessel’s 15-year dry-docking in 2028 without additional off-hire, the discounted payback period would range from approximately 1.4 to 4.2 years, depending on fuel prices. By 2038, the net present value of the fuel savings could range from $2 million to $10 million. The calculation does not include EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime or potential IMO compliance costs, all of which would strengthen the business case.

Routine maintenance can also generate measurable returns. Data from a Cargill-chartered vessel showed that hull and propeller cleaning reduced its Vessel Technical Index from 1.32 to 1.14. The improvement saved approximately 120 tonnes of fuel during a 33-day voyage, worth about $56,000 at a fuel price of $470 per tonne. The cleaning cost was approximately $14,000.

The findings reinforce the growing importance of verified performance data. Owners, charterers and financiers will increasingly require evidence that an efficiency measure produces sustained savings under real operating conditions. Sensors, data quality, performance baselines and standardized verification are becoming part of the commercial value of energy-efficiency investments.

Alternative-fuel tonnage is growing, but the orderbook share has declined

Alternative-fuel capability has expanded rapidly since 2020. Excluding LNG carriers, the number of capable vessels increased from 213 in 2020 to 1,329 by August 2026. Their combined gross tonnage rose from approximately 6 million GT to 89 million GT—an almost fifteenfold increase.

The difference between vessel and tonnage growth shows that adoption has been concentrated among larger ships, particularly containerships, car carriers and cruise vessels.

As of August 2026, 813 LNG carriers and 929 other vessels could use LNG as fuel. More than 42 methanol tankers and 112 other ships were methanol-capable. A further 234 LPG carriers could use their cargo as fuel, while eight vessels could use hydrogen and four had demonstrated ammonia-fuel operation.

The orderbook remains substantial. It includes 672 LNG-capable vessels plus 319 LNG carriers, more than 294 methanol-capable ships, 42 ammonia-capable vessels and 25 hydrogen-capable ships.

However, alternative-fuel-capable ships now represent 39.4% of total gross tonnage on order, down from 49.5% in the previous year. DNV attributes this partly to uncertainty surrounding the IMO Net-Zero Framework and partly to a change in orderbook composition. Containerships, car carriers and cruise vessels—segments with relatively high alternative-fuel adoption—previously drove much of the ordering. The current orderbook contains a larger share of tankers and bulk carriers, where adoption remains lower.

The disparity between segments is pronounced. Approximately 26% of car carriers are alternative-fuel capable, compared with 19% of cruise vessels and 11% of containerships. The corresponding shares are only 5% for crude oil tankers, 1.2% for oil and chemical tankers and 1.1% for bulk carriers.

Container shipping remains one of the most active markets. The containership orderbook includes 424 LNG-capable ships and 158 methanol-capable vessels. By contrast, among approximately 13,000 bulk carriers in operation, only 72 are LNG-capable and three are methanol-capable.

The commercial structure of each segment helps determine the pace of adoption. Container lines and car carriers generally operate predictable routes, maintain closer relationships with cargo owners and face greater Scope 3 emissions pressure. Tanker and dry bulk markets remain more cost-driven, with thinner margins, less end-customer visibility and fewer charterers willing to pay a green premium without regulatory requirements.

Technical capability has not yet translated into low-GHG fuel use

A dual-fuel engine provides flexibility, but its emissions performance depends on the fuel that is actually consumed.

DNV estimates that once the current orderbook has been delivered, the alternative-fuel consumption capacity of the global fleet could approach 60 Mtoe by 2030. LNG would account for about 48 Mtoe, including roughly 42 million tonnes of LNG, while methanol would represent approximately 7 Mtoe, equivalent to about 5 million tonnes of methanol.

Actual consumption remains well below that potential. Between 2019 and 2024, LNG carriers used approximately 69% to 79% of their potential LNG consumption capacity. For other LNG-capable ships, utilization ranged from 32% to 52%. LNG use fell particularly sharply in 2022 when bunker prices rose far above fuel-oil prices in hubs such as Singapore and Rotterdam.

Methanol utilization was even lower. Methanol carriers used between 11% and 75% of their potential capacity between 2019 and 2024, while utilization among other methanol-capable ships ranged from zero to 12%. Most LNG and methanol consumed during the period was fossil-based.

These figures show that alternative-fuel ordering should not be equated automatically with decarbonization. Without adequate supplies of low-GHG variants, credible lifecycle certification and a regulatory incentive strong enough to close the price gap, dual-fuel ships can continue operating predominantly on conventional fuel.

Bunkering infrastructure is expanding in response to the new fleet. The number of LNG bunker vessels has risen from 25 in 2020 to 67, including 23 with capacities above 10,000 cubic metres. Twenty-four methanol bunker vessels are already operating and another eight are on order. The first 5,000-cubic-metre ammonia bunker vessel has also entered the orderbook and is expected to operate from Singapore.

DNV has identified low-GHG bunkering activity at nearly 90 ports between 2015 and April 2026. FAME and HVO biofuels have been supplied at almost 70 ports, liquefied biomethane at a minimum of 20, and low-GHG methanol at least 16. Low-GHG ammonia bunkering has been recorded at only three East Asian ports. Some of these operations were pilot projects or relied on mass-balance accounting, meaning they do not yet represent regular commercial availability for deep-sea vessels.

The 270-Mtoe supply figure is an upper boundary

Global low-GHG fuel supply totalled approximately 135 Mtoe in 2025. Ethanol accounted for 64 Mtoe, biodiesel—including FAME and HVO—for 56 Mtoe, and biomethane for 10 Mtoe. Shipping consumed only around 1 Mtoe.

If all announced projects are delivered on schedule, supply could reach a maximum of 270 Mtoe by 2030. DNV’s breakdown includes 69 Mtoe of diesel-type fuels, 19 Mtoe of methane, 24 Mtoe of methanol, 84 Mtoe of ammonia, 65 Mtoe of ethanol and 8 Mtoe of hydrogen.

This is a project-pipeline maximum rather than a forecast of delivered supply. Many projects have not reached final investment decisions, and new production facilities can require more than five years to develop. Delays, cancellations, financing constraints and competition from aviation, road transport and industry could reduce the volumes ultimately offered to shipping.

Cost presents another barrier. The lowest-cost 2030 pathways include biomethane produced from manure, ethanol from sugarcane and biodiesel from waste oils and fats. Their estimated abatement costs range from approximately $180 to $300 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent, but these pathways represent less than 20% of total potential supply.

Only around 62 Mtoe of the potential 2030 supply has an estimated abatement cost below the original IMO Net-Zero Framework’s Tier 2 remedial unit price of $380 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent. No pathway falls below the Tier 1 price of $100. Blue ammonia has an estimated abatement cost of approximately $490 per tonne, while e-ammonia is around $680.

The distinction between energy price and abatement cost is becoming central to fuel economics. A fuel may be expensive per tonne but deliver a large lifecycle emissions reduction, giving it greater compliance value. Another may appear cheaper while providing insufficient greenhouse-gas reduction to justify its use under future regulations.

Fuel supply and vessel capability are developing out of alignment

By 2030, the existing fleet and orderbook could provide approximately 59 Mtoe of alternative-fuel consumption capacity. A further 22 Mtoe would be associated with vessels that have not yet been ordered and whose fuel technology remains undecided.

The distribution of this capacity does not match projected fuel supply. The fleet’s potential consumption capacity for low-GHG methane is approximately 52 Mtoe, compared with potential supply of only 19 Mtoe. For methanol, the fleet could consume around 4.3 Mtoe against potential supply of 24 Mtoe. For ammonia, vessel capacity would be just 0.2 Mtoe, while the announced supply pipeline could theoretically produce 84 Mtoe.

The market could therefore experience fuel shortages and underused production capacity at the same time. LNG-capable ships may struggle to secure sufficient low-GHG methane, while ammonia projects may lack an adequate fleet of technically capable vessels. Engines, safety rules, crew competence, fuel tanks, bunker vessels and port procedures must all develop alongside production.

The amount of fleet energy demand for which the fuel technology remains undecided rises to 91 Mtoe in 2040 and 137 Mtoe in 2050. This leaves room for future changes in ordering preferences, but even in 2050, approximately 17 Mtoe of energy demand will remain associated with conventional fuel-oil technology on ships already sailing today.

Orders placed during the next decade will therefore shape the marine fuel market well into the 2040s. Fuel-ready notation, conversion space, tank arrangements, shore-power capability and energy efficiency may determine whether those assets retain the flexibility to adapt.

Biofuels will remain crucial, but aviation can outbid shipping

DNV estimates that maximum global biofuel production could reach approximately 1,000 Mtoe in 2040 and 1,300 Mtoe in 2050. These estimates are constrained by the physical availability of agricultural residues, municipal waste, waste oils, woody biomass and other suitable feedstocks.

In a cross-sector scenario consistent with net zero by 2050, global low-GHG fuel demand could exceed 2,200 Mtoe. Even DNV’s more likely pathway, which produces an approximately 43% reduction in global greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, would require at least 1,300 Mtoe.

Demand would eventually exhaust the lowest-cost biofuel pathways, requiring greater production of blue fuels and e-fuels. This would push marginal abatement costs higher.

Shipping’s projected demand of 33 Mtoe to 185 Mtoe in 2050 is only a fraction of total cross-sector demand, but access will depend on competing industries’ willingness to pay. Aviation has few commercially mature direct-electrification options and will require energy-dense sustainable aviation fuel. It is therefore likely to maintain one of the highest willingness-to-pay levels for low-GHG liquid fuels.

Aviation and road transport together could consume between 120 Mtoe and 140 Mtoe of low-GHG fuels in 2030—roughly half of the maximum global supply. Once methanol and ammonia are excluded, the two sectors could account for about 80% of the remaining potential supply.

Aviation and shipping may not always require identical fuel molecules, but they often rely on the same biomass feedstocks. Waste oils, fats, agricultural residues and woody biomass can be directed towards either sustainable aviation fuel or marine biodiesel. Long-term offtake agreements, partnerships with fuel producers and access to major bunker hubs could become strategically important sources of competitive advantage for shipowners.

A single global low-GHG fuel price is unlikely to emerge

DNV does not expect different low-GHG fuel types to converge around one global benchmark, even in a mature market.

Biodiesel, biomethane, green methanol, blue ammonia and e-ammonia rely on different feedstocks, conversion efficiencies, energy inputs and distribution infrastructure. Their prices may remain partly decoupled, while local electricity costs, subsidies, certification requirements and logistics create substantial regional differences.

E-ammonia’s abatement cost could fall from approximately $550 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent in 2040 to $380 in 2050. Blue ammonia could reach around $420 by 2050. Such reductions depend on large-scale production, learning effects, access to renewable electricity and sustained policy support. They will not occur automatically in the absence of credible demand.

Before 2030, methanol and ammonia are likely to be priced mainly through long-term offtake agreements. More interchangeable products such as biodiesel and liquefied biomethane may develop local or regional spot markets earlier.

Regulatory pricing will establish a ceiling on what shipping is prepared to pay. The FuelEU Maritime penalty when operating on fossil fuel oil is equivalent to approximately $740 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent. The initially approved IMO framework set the Tier 2 remedial unit price at $380. If a fuel’s abatement cost exceeds the cost of paying a penalty or buying remedial units, owners have little immediate economic incentive to use it.

Marine fuel procurement will increasingly be assessed in terms of dollars per tonne of CO₂ equivalent avoided, alongside the conventional price per tonne of fuel.

DNV’s VLCC case shows why no strategy wins under every scenario

To demonstrate its updated transition-risk framework, DNV models a fleet of five VLCCs: two built in 2010, one in 2015 and two in 2020. All existing vessels use conventional fuel oil, are equipped with open-loop scrubbers and have no shore-power connection.

The first strategy continues using high-sulphur heavy fuel oil and scrubbers. Each vessel is replaced at 20 years of age with another conventional scrubber-fitted VLCC incorporating standard energy-efficiency measures.

The second strategy retrofits selected existing ships with more advanced efficiency technologies and replaces ageing tonnage with LNG dual-fuel VLCCs. The new ships include advanced energy-efficiency measures and shore-power connections and can operate on fuel oil, LNG, biodiesel, biomethane and e-methane.

Both strategies begin with an average break-even rate of approximately $52,000 per day in 2026. Under the slow-transition scenario, the break-even rate rises to about $61,000 per day for the HSHFO-and-scrubber strategy and $67,000 for the LNG strategy by 2049. The conventional strategy performs better because of its lower capital cost and continued access to relatively cheap high-sulphur fuel.

Under the rapid-transition scenario, the result reverses. By 2049, the break-even rate reaches approximately $167,000 per day for the HSHFO-and-scrubber fleet, compared with $144,000 for the LNG dual-fuel strategy. The conventional fleet increasingly relies on costly low-GHG diesel or pays high compliance charges, while the LNG fleet benefits from better energy efficiency and access to lower-priced low-GHG methane.

DNV assumes a base newbuilding price of approximately $130 million for a VLCC, with LNG dual-fuel capability adding about $20 million. In the slow-transition scenario, the additional capital expenditure is difficult to recover. In the rapid-transition scenario, higher carbon and compliance costs progressively convert that investment into valuable operational flexibility.

The rapid scenario assumes that the IMO Tier 2 remedial unit price rises from $380 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent in 2029 to $500 in 2033 and $700 from 2040. EU allowance prices increase from $89 in 2026 to $229 in 2049.

DNV stresses that the case is illustrative and does not establish LNG as the universally preferred VLCC solution. It demonstrates how the same fleet investment can produce substantially different economic outcomes under different regulatory and fuel-market conditions.

Fleet decarbonization is becoming an exercise in portfolio resilience

DNV’s updated framework combines measurable costs with risks that are difficult to express in monetary terms. These include charter competitiveness, financing access, fuel availability, crew competence, technology reliability, restrictions on open-loop scrubbers and the potential loss of secondhand value.

Owners are encouraged to develop several fleet strategies, test them against multiple internally consistent scenarios and evaluate both cost and risk. The framework can also incorporate mitigation measures such as FuelEU compliance pooling, long-term fuel offtake agreements, charter-party allocation of greenhouse-gas costs and forward purchases of surplus compliance units.

Several conclusions emerge clearly from the report. Energy efficiency remains the most robust investment across almost every scenario. Dual-fuel machinery provides optionality, while actual emissions depend on the fuel used. The existing fleet and orderbook will lock in much of the industry’s 2030 fuel demand, keeping biodiesel and low-GHG methane highly relevant. Fuel competition will increasingly be measured by abatement cost and regulatory value. Long-term partnerships with cargo owners, fuel suppliers, ports and financial institutions will become as important as the machinery installed onboard.

Shipping’s decarbonization journey is continuing, but it is unlikely to follow a smooth or uniform path. The outcome of the IMO negotiations could determine whether marine low-GHG fuel demand reaches 4 Mtoe or 22 Mtoe in 2030—and whether it is closer to 33 Mtoe or 185 Mtoe in 2050.

For shipowners, the central strategic requirement is therefore the ability to preserve flexibility across several possible futures. The ships ordered today must remain commercially viable through changing regulations, volatile fuel markets and technological development, while retaining their earning capacity into the 2040s and beyond.

Source: DNV, Maritime Forecast to 2050 — 2026 Edition