The Global Rush to Order New Ships

To maintain market competitiveness, leading shipping companies are ramping up investments in new vessel construction. COSCO Shipping Holdings—the container shipping platform under COSCO Shipping Group—ranks among the world’s top four container carriers. In August last year, it announced a large-scale shipbuilding program: constructing 12 dual-fuel methanol-powered containerships with a capacity of 14,000 TEUs each at its affiliated shipyards, at a total cost of approximately RMB 15.3399 billion. “New vessels hold significantly stronger competitive advantages,” observes Liu Chunting. Currently, the shipbuilding market introduces a new vessel type every three to five years, with improvements across multiple dimensions—including fuel consumption intensity, equipment intelligence, and cargo compatibility. Even saving just a few tons of fuel per day can reduce daily operating costs by over a thousand U.S. dollars—driving global shipowners to rush orders for new ships and compete fiercely for shipyard berths. Although new ship orders have noticeably declined this year and average vessel prices have somewhat softened, order books at top-tier shipyards remain largely full, with dry-dock slots booked through 2029. According to the seasoned shipping industry professional cited above, although China’s state-owned shipping enterprises differ in their specific priorities for new ship orders, their overall strategies form a complementary pattern covering the entire logistics chain for bulk cargo transportation. More importantly, all newly built vessels reflect a shared strategic direction: green ships have become an industry-wide consensus on transformation. June 15, 2024: At the LNG Integrated Training Center specially built by Dalian Shipbuilding, instructors provide manual welding training to trainees. Photo / Reporter Han Haidan, China Newsweek Capacity Planning Emerges as a New Challenge “The first question when placing a new-build order is: choose a conventional-fuel vessel or a new-fuel vessel?” Liu Chunting told China Newsweek. Environmental regulations are accelerating vessel replacement cycles, and the proportion of alternative-fuel ships will directly determine future fleet competitiveness. In July 2023, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted a revised greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategy, setting clearer targets: by 2030, emissions must be reduced by at least 20%—and ideally 30%—compared to 2008 levels; by 2040, reductions must reach at least 70%—and aim for 80%; and by around 2050, net-zero GHG emissions must be achieved. The seasoned shipping professional notes that short-term measures under this strategy focus primarily on vessel energy efficiency management. Shipping companies can meet interim targets via technical means such as speed reduction. However, during the medium- to long-term phase, the IMO and the European Union will deploy carbon taxes or other penalty mechanisms to compel shipping companies to switch to environmentally friendly fuels. “You either transform now—or pay much higher operational costs later,” Liu Chunting states bluntly. Shipping companies face only two options: invest heavily in retrofitting existing vessels, or invest in building new ones. Meanwhile, among current alternative marine fuels, liquefied natural gas (LNG) is relatively mature technologically, while green methanol, hydrogen, and ammonia represent additional options still under development. The real-world demand for green, high-end vessels poses fresh challenges for shipbuilders. In September 2023, China Merchants Energy Shipping (CMES) placed an order at Dalian Shipbuilding for three 306,000-DWT methanol dual-fuel intelligent Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs). Liu Chunting explains that this vessel is the world’s first methanol dual-fuel VLCC. The shipyard not only had to overcome technical hurdles related to the dual-fuel supply system but also collaborated closely with engine manufacturers to design and integrate critical components such as dual-fuel main engines—a formidable challenge, though still less daunting than developing LNG carriers from scratch.

Integration of Shipping and Energy Systems: A Systemic Pathway Toward Low-Carbon Fuels, Green Ports, and Net-Zero Shipping

This report—and all its text, charts, data compilation, analytical frameworks, layout design, and related outputs—are protected under the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China and other relevant laws and regulations. No entity or individual may reproduce, reprint, excerpt, adapt, translate, disseminate, display, sell, use for consulting services, training courses, project applications, investment and financing materials, commercial reports, or any other profit-making purposes without prior written permission from the author(s) or rights holder(s). Any unauthorized commercial use, secondary distribution, alteration of attribution, misappropriation of outputs, or disguised profiteering shall trigger legal liability upon discovery. The author(s) and rights holder(s) reserve the right to demand cessation of infringement, public correction, compensation for losses, and pursuit of any other legally applicable remedies. Abstract “Shipping–Energy Integration” should not be narrowly interpreted as mere marine fuel substitution. Rather, it must be understood as systemic coupling among ship propulsion systems, port energy infrastructure, power grids and energy storage, supply chains for molecular fuels (e.g., hydrogen, ammonia, methanol), carbon management systems, and digital dispatching, regulatory, and verification platforms. Internationally, clear signals have already emerged: In 2023, the IMO set an overarching target for international shipping—achieving peak GHG emissions “as soon as possible” and net-zero emissions “by around 2050”—alongside indicative milestones: at least a 20% (and aiming for 30%) reduction by 2030, and at least a 70% (and aiming for 80%) reduction by 2040, both relative to 2008 levels. Moreover, the IMO’s 2024 Life Cycle Guidelines explicitly extend fuel assessment to the well-to-wake boundary—including electricity and other energy carriers—meaning future competition will no longer center solely on “what is emitted onboard,” but rather on “what is emitted across the entire energy value chain.” Economically and technically, the most realistic global pathway over the next decade is not the emergence of a single “ultimate fuel,” but rather a stratified rollout aligned with voyage profiles and port-call patterns. Short-haul, fixed-route, high-frequency vessels—including ro-pax ferries, feeder ships, and harbor craft—are better suited to battery-electric propulsion, shore power, and port-integrated energy storage/microgrids. In contrast, deep-sea bulk carriers, container ships, and ocean-going vessels will likely follow a hybrid approach: boosting energy efficiency, transitioning via methanol/biofuels, and gradually scaling up ammonia/hydrogen/synthetic fuels. Meanwhile, wind-assisted propulsion, digital voyage optimization, and onboard carbon capture function more like cross-cutting “emission-multiplier” technologies. According to the IEA’s Net Zero Roadmap, biofuels, hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol will collectively account for roughly 19% of shipping’s energy consumption by 2030—rising from near zero today—and further climb to about 85% by 2050. Furthermore, the IEA estimates that if the IMO’s mid-term framework generates effective demand pull, renewable marine fuel demand could increase by approximately 0.4 EJ by 2030 and surge to 2.5–3.5 EJ by 2035. Policy-wise, shipping–energy integration has shifted from “voluntary pilots” to “institutional shaping.” At the global level, the IMO is advancing a comprehensive framework comprising fuel GHG intensity standards, emission pricing, a net-zero fund, and life-cycle certification. Regionally, the EU has established a policy triad—EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime, and AFIR—that simultaneously prices emissions, constrains fuel intensity, and mandates shore-power infrastructure deployment in port development. Nationally and port-wise, Singapore, the UK, the U.S., and Rotterdam (Netherlands), among others, are deploying standards, subsidies, demonstration projects, and industrial cluster incentives to de-risk first-of-a-kind initiatives.

IMO Faces Challenges in Net-Zero Compliance Without Emissions Cost

18 hours ago

IMO member states struggle to agree on financial mechanisms for net-zero shipping compliance as the US opposes carbon tax elements. Disagreements persist over closing price gaps between conventional and sustainable marine fuels like methanol and LNG.

chemweek

IMO Faces Challenges in Net-Zero Compliance Without Emissions Cost

FAQ