Whilst more and more ships are being ordered to run on alternative fuels, the expansion of the bunkering infrastructure is progressing only slowly. Lloyd’s Register sees a significant need to catch up, particularly where methanol and ammonia are concerned.
The global fleet of ships with alternative propulsion systems is growing faster than the port infrastructure required to support them. This is the conclusion reached by the British classification society Lloyd’s Register (LR) in its new study, ‘Fuel for Thought: Ports’. According to the study, 1,942 ships capable of running on alternative fuels had been ordered worldwide by January 2026. Based on data from Clarksons Research, such ships already accounted for 47 per cent of the tonnage ordered globally.
However, there are significant differences in the availability of fuels at ports. Whilst LNG can already be bunkered at 222 ports, only 25 ports are currently actively offering methanol as a marine fuel. The first commercial bunkering of ammonia did not take place until April 2026 in Ulsan, South Korea.
Particularly large gaps for methanol and ammonia
According to LR, at the start of 2026 there were a total of 385 methanol-capable and 45 ammonia-capable ships on shipyards’ order books. However, the infrastructure required for their operation and the supply of low-emission fuels remain concentrated in just a few locations.
Development is still at an early stage, particularly with regard to ammonia. In most ports, related activities have so far been limited to pilot projects, test phases or the development of safety concepts.
“The fleet is developing faster than the infrastructure intended to support it,” explains Kamran Ul Haq, Senior Vice President of LR Ports Advisory. Although shipowners could already order vessels designed for alternative fuels today, this does not mean that the required fuel will actually be available at the relevant operating locations later on. Fuel strategy and operating areas can therefore no longer be considered independently of one another.
LNG and biofuels significantly further ahead
The study also shows that the development of individual fuels is proceeding at different speeds. LNG already has a largely global bunkering network. Biofuel blends, on the other hand, can be deployed relatively quickly, as they can largely be supplied via the existing bunkering infrastructure.
According to data from the LR service Fuel Oil Bunker Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS), so-called drop-in biofuels were delivered to 90 ports worldwide within a twelve-month period. The 13 leading locations accounted for 77.5 per cent of the recorded bunker volumes. Singapore alone accounted for more than a quarter of the volume.
Meanwhile, methanol is increasingly establishing itself as a commercial marine fuel, although so far this has been mainly in a few larger ports. According to LR’s assessment, hydrogen remains largely confined to short-sea shipping and demonstration projects.
Geographically, developments are concentrated primarily in Northern Europe, North Asia and Singapore. It is therefore becoming increasingly important for shipowners to assess fuel availability along their actual trade routes.
Ports should tailor investments to demand
LR recommends that terminal operators base their investment decisions more closely on concrete demand, rather than simultaneously developing infrastructure for all alternative fuels. Key factors include binding new-build programmes, green shipping corridors and early investment in safety concepts, approval procedures, emergency preparedness and staff training.
Ul Haq also emphasises that it is not in every port’s interest to offer all types of fuel. Rather, ports must identify at an early stage where reliable demand is likely to arise and develop their infrastructure accordingly.
