# Shipping’s dual-fuel gamble: Are shipowners investing ahead of fuel availability?

- **Source:** https://pelavox.com/shippings-dual-fuel-gamble-are-shipowners-investing-ahead-of-fuel-availability/
- **Publisher:** pelavox. (The voice of shipping)
- **Author:** Helena Pierce
- **Published:** 2026-10-25T18:00:00+00:00
- **Updated:** 2026-10-23T13:19:34+00:00
- **Section:** Analysis / Market Analysis
- **Type:** News
- **Topics:** Alternative Marine Fuels, Dual-Fuel Vessels, LNG Bunkering, Maritime Decarbonisation, Shipbuilding

Shipping’s transition towards alternative fuels is entering a decisive phase. Shipowners are committing substantial capital to vessels capable of operating on different fuels, even as the infrastructure and production capacity needed to support some of those technologies remain under development.

The scale of this investment is becoming increasingly apparent. According to the [World Shipping Council’s Dual-Fuel Fleet Dashboard](https://www.worldshipping.org/dual-fuel-fleet-dashboard), updated on 22 October 2026, the combined global fleet and orderbook of dual-fuel containerships and vehicle carriers has reached 1,352 vessels. Of these, 503 are already in operation, while another 849 remain on order.

[As previously reported by pelavox](https://pelavox.com/dual-fuel-shipping-fleet-expands-cleaner-technologies/)., the expansion of alternative-fuel-capable fleets reflects growing investment in technologies intended to provide shipowners with greater operational flexibility during the energy transition.

These figures demonstrate the growing importance of alternative-fuel capability in two major shipping segments. They do not, however, indicate how frequently the vessels are actually operating on lower-emission fuels, nor do they represent the entire global merchant fleet.

This distinction highlights one of the most important questions facing the shipping industry: are shipowners investing in alternative-fuel-capable vessels faster than the global energy and bunkering sectors can provide the fuels needed to realise their environmental and commercial potential?

The answer is far from straightforward. LNG, methanol, ammonia and other emerging fuel pathways differ significantly in technological maturity, infrastructure requirements, environmental performance and commercial availability. For shipowners, the investment decision is increasingly about managing long-term uncertainty rather than identifying a single winning technology.

## A rapidly expanding dual-fuel orderbook

The latest World Shipping Council figures illustrate how strongly alternative-fuel capability has become embedded in newbuilding decisions, particularly in container shipping and vehicle transportation.

According to the organisation, dual-fuel vessels account for 65% of containership orders and 97% of vehicle carrier orders when measured by deadweight tonnage. Across the remainder of the global fleet orderbook, the corresponding share is substantially lower, at 23%.

The difference reflects the varying commercial and operational characteristics of shipping segments. Container carriers typically operate established service networks with relatively predictable port rotations, allowing fuel procurement and bunkering arrangements to be organised around major maritime hubs.

Vehicle carriers also frequently operate within structured global logistics networks, where long-term commercial relationships may support investment in new propulsion technologies.

Other sectors, particularly tramp shipping, face different operational conditions. Bulk carriers and tankers may trade between changing destinations, making reliable fuel availability across a wider geographical area especially important.

The figures therefore suggest that alternative-fuel investment is not advancing uniformly across shipping. It is developing most rapidly where vessel deployment patterns and commercial structures may provide greater opportunities to coordinate fuel supply.

Nevertheless, even in the most advanced segments, ordering a dual-fuel vessel does not guarantee that it will operate predominantly on a lower-emission fuel.

## LNG’s infrastructure advantage comes with limitations

LNG has established a significant position within the alternative marine fuel market, supported by commercially available propulsion technology and a comparatively developed bunkering network.

For shipowners, this existing infrastructure provides an advantage over fuel pathways that require entirely new production, storage and distribution systems.

However, the growth of LNG-capable shipping is placing increasing demands on the infrastructure required to supply these vessels.

In a [September 2026 assessment](https://www.dnv.com/news/2026/LNG-bunker-fleet-may-need-to-more-than-double-by-2030-to-keep-pace-with-growing-fuel-demand/), classification society DNV warned that the LNG bunkering fleet may need to more than double by 2030 to keep pace with projected demand.

This finding is particularly important because it demonstrates that even the most commercially established alternative marine fuel faces infrastructure challenges as adoption accelerates.

The availability of LNG as a marine fuel must also be distinguished from the availability of lower-emission alternatives such as bio-LNG and synthetic methane.

Conventional fossil LNG continues to generate greenhouse gas emissions. Its overall environmental performance depends on factors including methane leakage during production and transportation, as well as methane slip associated with certain marine engine technologies.

Lower-emission methane pathways may offer additional decarbonisation opportunities, but their benefits depend on production methods, lifecycle emissions and access to appropriately certified fuel supplies.

Consequently, a vessel capable of operating on LNG is not automatically a low-emission vessel under every operating condition.

For shipowners, LNG offers a relatively mature technology and fuel supply chain, but does not eliminate uncertainty over future fuel costs, environmental performance or regulatory requirements.

## Methanol and ammonia present different investment challenges

Methanol has emerged as another important alternative-fuel pathway, particularly for shipping companies seeking flexibility between conventional marine fuels and potentially lower-emission alternatives.

Its existing industrial supply chains and certain handling characteristics offer advantages, although maritime bunkering networks still require expansion to support broader adoption.

The central commercial challenge is the availability and cost of methanol produced through pathways capable of delivering meaningful lifecycle greenhouse gas reductions.

Conventional fossil-based methanol cannot be treated as environmentally equivalent to renewable methanol. The emissions associated with its production and use depend on the feedstock, energy sources and manufacturing process.

Ammonia presents a different technological proposition. Because it contains no carbon, its use as a fuel does not produce carbon dioxide from fuel carbon during combustion. However, its overall environmental performance depends on production emissions, while onboard emissions such as nitrous oxide must also be considered.

Its toxicity introduces significant safety requirements, including specialised fuel systems, handling procedures, crew training and port infrastructure.

These characteristics mean that ammonia’s commercial development depends on more than the availability of suitable marine engines. Fuel production, safety frameworks, transportation networks and bunkering capabilities must advance together.

The comparison between LNG, methanol and ammonia illustrates why alternative-fuel investments cannot be evaluated solely by reference to the propulsion system installed onboard a vessel.

The entire fuel supply chain ultimately determines whether the technology can deliver its intended commercial and environmental benefits.

## The financial risk of investing ahead of the market

Alternative-fuel-capable vessels can involve additional capital expenditure compared with conventionally fuelled ships, depending on their propulsion systems, fuel storage requirements and technical specifications.

Additional equipment may include specialised engines, fuel tanks, associated piping and safety systems. In certain configurations, these installations can also affect cargo-carrying capacity or vessel design.

However, the financial implications extend beyond construction costs.

Shipowners must consider future fuel prices, maintenance requirements, crew training, regulatory compliance and the availability of suitable bunkering facilities throughout a vessel’s operating life.

A ship ordered today may remain in service for decades. Its commercial performance will therefore depend partly on market and regulatory developments that cannot be predicted with certainty at the time of investment.

Dual-fuel capability provides an element of flexibility by allowing vessels, subject to their technical configuration, to operate on more than one fuel.

That flexibility can have considerable strategic value. It may allow operators to respond to changing fuel prices, customer requirements and environmental regulations without immediately replacing the vessel.

Nevertheless, flexibility comes at a cost.

If the intended alternative fuel remains expensive or difficult to obtain, a vessel may continue operating primarily on conventional marine fuel. In that situation, the additional capital invested in alternative-fuel capability may deliver less financial or environmental value than originally anticipated.

The risk is therefore not necessarily that the vessel becomes technologically obsolete. Rather, its additional equipment may remain underutilised for a prolonged period.

## The infrastructure gap is becoming more important

The development of alternative-fuel-capable vessels and the expansion of marine fuel infrastructure do not necessarily progress at the same pace.

Shipowners can place newbuilding orders through established shipyards and financing structures. By contrast, producing and distributing substantial quantities of lower-emission marine fuels may require major investments in renewable electricity, industrial production facilities, storage infrastructure and specialised bunkering vessels.

These investments involve different companies, financing arrangements, regulatory requirements and development timelines.

As a result, a shipowner may receive a vessel equipped to use an alternative fuel before commercially viable supplies become available along its intended trading routes.

Fuel producers face the opposite challenge. Without sufficient long-term demand commitments, they may hesitate to invest in production capacity that could remain underutilised.

This creates a coordination problem between shipping companies, fuel producers, ports and cargo owners.

Long-term procurement agreements and partnerships between these stakeholders may help reduce uncertainty, particularly where shipping routes and fuel demand are relatively predictable.

The challenge is more complicated for vessels operating without fixed schedules. For these ships, access to suitable fuel across a broad geographical network may be essential.

The infrastructure question is therefore becoming increasingly important in determining which shipping segments can adopt alternative fuels at scale and which may require longer transition periods.

![Shipping’s dual-fuel gamble: Are shipowners investing ahead of fuel availability?](https://pelavox.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Βιομηχανικό-Λιμάνι-στο-Χρυσό-Φως-cleaned-1024x576.webp)

## Regulation complicates the investment equation

Environmental regulation adds another layer of complexity to alternative-fuel investment decisions.

The European Union’s [FuelEU Maritime Regulation](https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/maritime/decarbonising-maritime-transport-fueleu-maritime_en), which has applied since January 2025, establishes progressively stricter limits on the greenhouse gas intensity of energy used onboard covered ships.

The framework assesses emissions across the fuel lifecycle, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. It therefore places importance on the actual environmental characteristics of the fuel used rather than simply the technology installed onboard.

The EU Emissions Trading System also affects the economics of maritime operations.

According to the [European Maritime Safety Agency](https://www.emsa.europa.eu/reducing-emissions/extension-ets.html), methane and nitrous oxide emissions entered the maritime EU ETS scope from January 2026, alongside carbon dioxide.

These developments reinforce the need for shipowners to consider lifecycle emissions and actual fuel use when evaluating alternative-fuel investments.

At the international level, however, the regulatory outlook remains less settled.

The International Maritime Organization approved the draft IMO Net-Zero Framework in April 2025, but its formal adoption has not yet been completed.

Following further discussions, the IMO scheduled additional negotiations ahead of MEPC 85, taking place from 30 November to 3 December 2026. The organisation has indicated that the extraordinary session considering adoption of the framework is scheduled to resume on 4 December, subject to confirmation.

The [IMO’s official meeting summary](https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/meetingsummaries/pages/temporary-mepc-84th-session.aspx) makes clear that further work is required to resolve outstanding concerns and develop broader agreement.

This uncertainty complicates investment planning.

Waiting for greater regulatory clarity may reduce the risk of choosing an unsuitable technology. However, delaying investment could also leave shipowners exposed to future compliance costs or limited access to suitable newbuilding capacity.

The commercial value of dual-fuel capability therefore depends partly on how effectively it allows owners to manage different possible regulatory outcomes.

## Who ultimately pays for the transition?

One of the most important questions surrounding alternative-fuel investment concerns the distribution of costs across the maritime supply chain.

Shipowners generally bear the capital expenditure associated with vessel construction or acquisition, while charterers and cargo owners can influence fuel choices through commercial agreements and environmental requirements.

The allocation of operating costs, fuel price differences and regulatory liabilities depends on the structure of individual contracts.

Long-term charter agreements may provide greater revenue visibility and support investment in vessels equipped with alternative-fuel technologies.

However, the availability of such arrangements varies across shipping segments.

For operators exposed to volatile spot markets, recovering the additional costs of alternative-fuel capability may be more challenging, particularly if customers are unwilling to pay a premium for lower-emission transportation.

This raises a broader question about whether the commercial benefits of maritime decarbonisation are being shared proportionately among the companies financing vessels, supplying fuels and purchasing transportation services.

The ability to coordinate vessel investments with fuel procurement and chartering commitments may become an increasingly important competitive advantage.

## A calculated investment in an uncertain future

The rapid expansion of dual-fuel vessel fleets demonstrates that significant parts of the shipping industry are preparing for a future in which conventional marine fuels may no longer dominate vessel operations.

However, the transition is not simply a matter of replacing engines or ordering new ships.

It requires the development of fuel production capacity, bunkering infrastructure, safety systems, regulatory frameworks and commercial arrangements capable of supporting large-scale adoption.

The World Shipping Council’s latest figures show how far investment has already advanced in container shipping and vehicle transportation. DNV’s assessment of future LNG bunkering requirements illustrates why infrastructure development remains a critical challenge even for comparatively mature fuel pathways.

For shipowners, the central question is not necessarily which alternative fuel will emerge as the dominant solution.

It is whether a particular investment provides sufficient flexibility, financial resilience and commercial value across several possible future scenarios.

Dual-fuel capability may prove to be an effective way of managing uncertainty during the energy transition. Yet its ultimate value will depend on whether suitable fuels become available at prices that support competitive shipping operations.

The next phase of maritime decarbonisation will therefore be measured not only by how many alternative-fuel-capable ships enter service, but by how effectively those vessels can use the fuels they were designed to accommodate.

---
Cite as: "Shipping’s dual-fuel gamble: Are shipowners investing ahead of fuel availability?", pelavox., 25 October 2026, https://pelavox.com/shippings-dual-fuel-gamble-are-shipowners-investing-ahead-of-fuel-availability/