To reduce environmental impacts from the shipping industry, the FuelEU Maritime Regulation has set a binding 80 % reduction target for well-to-wake (WTW) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050. This article presents a prospective life cycle assessment (LCA) comparing the environmental impacts of e-ammonia, e-methanol, e-Fischer Tropsch (FT) diesel, and e-liquefied natural gas (LNG)—for maritime applications in Europe. In addition to e-fuels, traditional propulsion technologies using very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) and LNG are assessed, both with and without integrating ship-based carbon capture (SBCC) systems. Key factors considered include the impact of different production locations in Europe, electrolysis technology choices, and global climate policies. Beyond analysing the environmental footprints, the study examines the economic and externality costs associated with each fuel option, contextualizing these findings within the GHG mitigation targets set by the FuelEU Maritime regulation.
The results indicate that e-ammonia, e-FT diesel, and e-methanol could meet the 2050 FuelEU Maritime target, but e-LNG and SBCCS could not. Although it is the most immature technology, e-ammonia could be the cheapest option with the lowest overall environmental impacts. E-LNG shows higher life cycle climate change impacts due to ship-level methane slip but has lower impacts across other environmental categories because of low NOx emissions. E-methanol has higher toxicity risks over the life cycle and higher costs.