1,942 Alternative-Fuel Ships on Order, But Bunkering Lags Far Behind

Shipowners have ordered 1,942 alternative-fuel-capable vessels — 47% of global orderbook tonnage — yet LNG bunkering exists at just 222 ports worldwide, methanol at 25, and commercial ammonia bunkering had been recorded at only one port by September. That is the core finding of Lloyd's Register's new 65-page report, Fuel for Thought: Ports, and it points to a two-tier global bunkering network where large parts of the merchant fleet cannot obtain the fuels their ships were designed to burn.

The orderbook is accelerating fast. DNV figures show 364 alternative-fuelled vessels ordered in 2026 to date, 57% higher than the same period in 2025. LNG dominates with 230 orders so far this year. But the mismatch is most striking on emerging fuels: LR counts 385 methanol-capable and 45 ammonia-capable vessels on order, against a supply network that barely exists.

"Readiness is built long before the first ship arrives," writes Kamran Ul Haq, senior vice-president of LR Ports Advisory, in the report's foreword.

What has actually been delivered?

Milestones are trickling through. In April, South Korea's Ulsan completed the first commercial ammonia bunkering operation, transferring roughly 600 tonnes to Exmar's Antwerpen. Since LR's research cut off, China's Zhoushan has followed: CMB.TECH's newcastlemax Mineral Europa took on 1,000 tonnes of green ammonia in the first commercial ship-to-ship operation involving the fuel — an operation since replicated in Australia with the same vessel.

The broader picture remains embryonic, and geography compounds the problem:

• Northern Europe, North Asia and Singapore account for most commercial milestones.
• Africa, South Asia, Latin America and the Pacific remain poorly represented.
• The International Association of Ports and Harbors warned in September of an increasingly divided port system, with developing countries needing $55bn to $83bn for climate adaptation and decarbonisation.

Even China, shipping's leading alternative-fuel manufacturing centre, is struggling to convert ambition into operations. A Global Maritime Forum study found that only one of China's 21 international green corridor initiatives has reached the realisation stage.

Why the supply gap is worse than it looks

Available fuel is scarcer than announced projects suggest. LR cites 61.8m tonnes of announced low-carbon methanol production capacity, but only 6m to 12m tonnes of renewable capacity is expected to become operational by the end of 2031.

The report identifies the "last mile" between fuel supply and ship as a fundamental commercial problem. Specialised bunker vessels, licensing, emergency arrangements and berth availability all require investment before sufficient demand exists to justify the spend — a chicken-and-egg bind that leaves forwarders and carriers exposed on fuel availability for tonnage already committed.

Economics don't help. Green methanol and ammonia cost two to three times conventional marine fuels, while cargo owners say they will pay average premiums of just 3%. That gap lands squarely on carriers and their customers.

What about shore power and biofuels?

The same infrastructure deficit extends to shore power. European grid upgrades could take four to 10 years, threatening ports' ability to meet mandatory connection requirements from 2030.

Biofuels offer the most immediately practical option. LR recorded biofuel deliveries at 90 ports — though 77.5% of volumes were concentrated in just 13 locations, hardly a resilient network.

Ul Haq cautions against scattergun spending. "No port needs to prepare for every fuel at once. Every port does need a plan," he wrote.

With the orderbook running years ahead of the bunkering network, expect pressure to build on the handful of hub ports already delivering — and on regulators to clarify which fuels, and which corridors, get priority when 2030 deadlines start to bite.