1,942 Alternative-Fuel Ships on Order, but Ammonia Bunkering Exists at Just One Port

Shipowners have ordered 1,942 alternative-fuel-capable vessels — 47% of the global orderbook by tonnage — yet commercial ammonia bunkering has been recorded at a single port worldwide. That mismatch, laid out in Lloyd's Register's new Fuel for Thought: Ports report released Monday, is becoming a defining commercial constraint on shipping's decarbonization.

How wide is the fuel availability gap?

The infrastructure picture varies sharply by fuel. LNG bunkering is available at 222 ports globally, while only 25 ports actively offer methanol, according to LR. Ammonia recorded its first commercial bunkering operation only in April 2026, at Ulsan in South Korea.

Against that backdrop, owners have ordered 385 methanol-capable vessels and 45 ammonia-capable ships, based on Clarksons Research data cited in the report. Roughly speaking, there is one active methanol bunkering port for every 15 methanol-capable ships on order.

"The fleet is moving faster than the infrastructure needed to support it," said Kamran Ul Haq, Senior Vice President of LR Ports Advisory. "An owner can order an alternative-fuel vessel today, but that does not mean the fuel will be available where that ship needs it. Fuel strategy and trading strategy can no longer be considered separately."

Is ordering momentum accelerating?

Orders are rising quickly, and LNG dominates. Data from DNV's Alternative Fuels Insight platform, reported by gCaptain in October, showed 69 alternative-fuel vessel orders in September — the highest monthly total in nearly two years. LNG accounted for 48 of them, spanning containerships, car carriers, bulk carriers and ro-ro vessels.

That brought alternative-fuel orders to 311 vessels through the first nine months of 2026, up 53% from the same period a year earlier. LNG's lead reflects maturity: an established global supply network and proven propulsion technology give owners flexibility across international trading routes. Methanol is gaining ground at major hubs but remains geographically limited, while most ports pursuing ammonia are still at the stage of pilot projects, safety assessments and regulatory frameworks.

What should ports do?

LR's conclusion is that ports should back fuels with credible demand rather than every emerging technology. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach reached a similar verdict last week: their joint Clean Marine Fuel Feasibility Assessment identified LNG and methanol as the most viable alternative marine fuels for the near and medium term, recommending a phased approach — existing ship-to-ship LNG bunkering first, methanol pilots second, alongside improved safety and permitting.

"Ports do not need to back every fuel," Ul Haq said. "They need to understand where credible demand will emerge and put the safety, regulation, skills and partnerships in place to respond."

Alternative-fuel infrastructure is also heavily concentrated in a handful of hubs — Northern Europe, North Asia and Singapore — which makes fuel access along specific trade lanes a growing factor in newbuilding and conversion decisions.

Where do biofuels and hydrogen fit?

Biofuels offer the most immediate option because compatible blends run through existing bunker infrastructure. LR's Fuel Oil Bunker Analysis and Advisory Service recorded drop-in biofuel deliveries at 90 ports over the past 12 months, but the top 13 ports accounted for 77.5% of recorded quantities, with Singapore alone representing more than a quarter. Hydrogen remains confined largely to demonstration projects and short-sea applications.

The report also draws a line between fuel availability and genuine emissions performance. LNG's rapid adoption has drawn scrutiny of methane slip — unburned methane from ship engines — particularly as European emissions regulations attach financial consequences to greenhouse gas performance. Methanol's climate benefits likewise depend heavily on production methods, making low-carbon fuel supply a second challenge beyond bunkering infrastructure itself.

For ports, LR says the next phase hinges on targeted investment, regulatory readiness and closer coordination with carriers and fuel suppliers, including berth-specific risk assessments, licensing, emergency response capability and workforce training to move fuels from trials into routine commercial operations.

"For ports, investment should follow credible demand rather than trying to prepare for every fuel at once," Ul Haq said, adding that named vessel programmes and green shipping corridors can reduce infrastructure risk.

The message for owners is direct: ordering a dual-fuel or alternative-fuel vessel is only half the equation, and confirming that fuel will be available, affordable and commercially viable on the ship's intended routes now carries equal weight in newbuilding strategy.