Comparison of Ammonia with Methanol, Liquefied Natural Gas and Conventional Marine Transportation Fuels through Life Cycle Cost and Emissions Analysis

Tripathi, S.; Kolodziej, C.; Masum, F.; Al-Ghussain, L.; Lu, Z.; Castro Gomez, D.; He, X.; Jin, E.; Bouchard, J.; Hawkins, T.; Wang, M. (2026). Comparison of Ammonia with Methanol, Liquefied Natural Gas and Conventional Marine Transportation Fuels through Life Cycle Cost and Emissions Analysis. Energy Conversion and Management, 351, 19.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2026.121047

@article{Tripathi-2026-3989,
author = {Tripathi, S and Kolodziej, C and Masum, F and Al-Ghussain, L and Lu, Z and Castro Gomez, D and He, X and Jin, E and Bouchard, J and Hawkins, T and Wang, M},
title = {Comparison of Ammonia with Methanol, Liquefied Natural Gas and Conventional Marine Transportation Fuels through Life Cycle Cost and Emissions Analysis},
journal = {Energy Conversion and Management},
year = {2026},
month = {mar},
publisher = {Elsevier},
volume = {351},
pages = {19},
doi = {10.1016/j.enconman.2026.121047},
url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196890426000166},
keywords = {Fossil-derived Hydrocarbons, Ammonia, Methane (Natural Gas), Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO), Marine Gas Oil (MGO), Marine Diesel Oil (MDO), Methanol, Thermochemical, Electrochemical, Catalysis, Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) and Air Emissions, Ocean-going Vessels},
}

TY - JOUR
TI - Comparison of Ammonia with Methanol, Liquefied Natural Gas and Conventional Marine Transportation Fuels through Life Cycle Cost and Emissions Analysis
AU - Tripathi, S
AU - Kolodziej, C
AU - Masum, F
AU - Al-Ghussain, L
AU - Lu, Z
AU - Castro Gomez, D
AU - He, X
AU - Jin, E
AU - Bouchard, J
AU - Hawkins, T
AU - Wang, M
T2 - Energy Conversion and Management
AB - This study evaluates ammonia as a potential marine fuel for a SUEZMAX tanker and compares it with methanol, liquefied natural gas, and conventional fuel oils. The motivation arises from the need to identify low-emission, cost-competitive fuel options that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping. The central hypothesis is that ammonia produced from renewable energy sources can achieve lower well-to-wake greenhouse gas emissions with varying life cycle costs based on the region. Life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis were performed for a thirty-year vessel lifetime on two representative trade routes: from Saudi Arabia to Japan and from Saudi Arabia to the Netherlands. Four ammonia production pathways were assessed: natural gas, natural gas with carbon capture, natural gas pyrolysis, and renewable electricity–based synthesis. Results show that wind-based ammonia produced in Saudi Arabia achieved the lowest life cycle well-to-wake greenhouse gas emissions, between 0.58 and 0.64 million metric tons, among all fuels when using regional grid process electricity. With renewable process electricity, ammonia produced from natural gas pyrolysis in Saudi Arabia showed comparable emissions of 0.37 to 0.44 million metric tons with wind-based ammonia of 0.37 to 0.43 million metric tons. Liquefied natural gas exhibited the lowest life cycle cost, between 402 and 412 million United States dollars, and the only negative carbon abatement cost, ranging from −277 to –322 United States dollars per metric ton of greenhouse gas, compared with high sulfur fuel oil. The findings indicate that renewable ammonia offers a promising long-term pathway for reducing shipping emissions, while liquefied natural gas remains the most cost-effective option in the near term.
DA - 2026/03//
PY - 2026
PB - Elsevier
VL - 351
SP - 19
UR - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196890426000166
DO - 10.1016/j.enconman.2026.121047
LA - English
KW - Fossil-derived Hydrocarbons
KW - Ammonia
KW - Methane (Natural Gas)
KW - Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO)
KW - Marine Gas Oil (MGO)
KW - Marine Diesel Oil (MDO)
KW - Methanol
KW - Thermochemical
KW - Electrochemical
KW - Catalysis
KW - Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) and Air Emissions
KW - Ocean-going Vessels
ER -