Alternative fuels have moved from a slide in a conference deck to a line item in real newbuild contracts — but 2026’s numbers tell a more measured story than the headlines about a “green shipping revolution” suggest. Orders slowed slightly in the first half of the year, one fuel still dominates by a wide margin, and the fuel that gets the most attention is barely being ordered at all. For a buyer, the practical question isn’t which fuel wins in theory — it’s what fuel choice does to a ship’s compliance position and resale value over the next decade, and that is a question with a clearer answer than the hype suggests.
What’s actually being ordered: LNG still leads, by a lot
Shipowners placed orders for 137 alternative-fuelled vessels in the first half of 2026, down modestly from 155 over the same period in 2025 — a slowdown, not a reversal, and a sign the market is being more selective rather than losing interest. LNG remained the dominant choice by a wide margin, accounting for 73 of those 137 orders, concentrated in containerships (42) and car carriers (21). Methanol, ethanol, ammonia and hydrogen made up the rest between them, with methanol the clear second choice. On the delivery side, 61 LNG-fuelled and 38 methanol-fuelled vessels entered service in the first half of 2026 — LNG is not just the leading order choice, it’s the fuel actually showing up in working fleets today.
How the main options compare
| Fuel | 2026 status | What a buyer should know |
|---|---|---|
| LNG | Dominant order share; over 700 vessels in service, 200+ bunkering ports | Most mature infrastructure and immediate SECA/NECA compliance, but classed as a transitional fuel — lifecycle emissions run 15–20% above IMO 2050 targets, so it doesn’t fully future-proof a ship |
| Methanol | Clear second choice; 38 vessels delivered H1 2026 | Can run on modified conventional engines and comes in bio/e-methanol variants, giving a path from near-term compliance to longer-term decarbonisation without a full technology change |
| Ammonia | Early stage; 4 orders, first oceangoing dual-fuel vessel delivered in 2026 | Longest-horizon option — cost modelling suggests blue ammonia doesn’t become cost-competitive until around 2037, so this is a bet on the 2030s, not a near-term buying decision |
| Hydrogen | Negligible order volume; 1 order in H1 2026 | Storage density and bunkering infrastructure remain the binding constraints; not yet a realistic option outside niche or short-route applications |
Why this matters beyond the newbuild decision
Fuel choice isn’t only a question for owners ordering new tonnage — it shapes the resale value of every ship already trading, because CII thresholds tighten every year regardless of what fuel a vessel burns. A conventionally-fuelled ship isn’t obsolete, but its CII trajectory is harder to hold as the bar rises, which is exactly the dynamic covered in EEXI and CII explained for vessel buyers and in what drives a ship’s long-term value. A buyer weighing secondhand tonnage should treat fuel flexibility and CII headroom as part of the residual-value case, not a separate environmental consideration bolted onto the commercial one.
Bunkering infrastructure: still a “green corridor” story, not a global one
A fuel choice is only as useful as the ports that can supply it, and methanol and ammonia infrastructure is rolling out along specific trade corridors rather than everywhere at once. Singapore has moved fastest — its Maritime and Port Authority licensed methanol bunkering suppliers from 1 January 2026 and brought a new green methanol terminal at Jurong Port online the same month, and expects its first ammonia bunkering in 2026 following delivery of early ammonia-fuelled vessels. Rotterdam and the wider Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp region has methanol bunkering under way too, with bio-methanol volumes nearly tripling in the most recent year reported. India’s Kandla Port has run shore-to-ship methanol trials and is targeting significant renewable methanol capacity later this decade to serve Asia-Europe trade. The pattern is a deliberate “green corridor” strategy — infrastructure concentrated on the major East-West lanes rather than spread evenly across the world’s ports — which means a ship’s trading pattern, not just its engine, decides whether an alternative fuel is actually usable day to day.
Build dual-fuel from the start, or retrofit later? The economics
For a buyer weighing a newbuild, ordering dual-fuel capability from the outset is markedly cheaper than adding it afterward. A methanol dual-fuel newbuild carries a premium of roughly 10–16% over a standard newbuild price, and an ammonia dual-fuel newbuild roughly 19–24% — meaningful, but a known, financeable number at contract stage. Retrofitting an existing ship is a different proposition: converting fuel oil to a full dual-fuel system runs USD 5–15 million depending on fuel type, with methanol typically at the lower end since its tanks can run at ambient temperature and be built in during initial construction for later conversion, while ammonia needs more specialised tankage and equipment that pushes costs toward the top of the range. The industry rule of thumb is that a retrofit only stays commercially viable below roughly 25% of the ship’s newbuild price — above that, buying new dual-fuel tonnage tends to make more sense than converting old tonnage.
That gap matters directly for how you read a secondhand ship’s asking price. A conventionally-fuelled vessel without dual-fuel-ready tankage built in is not just “not yet compliant” — it may be structurally expensive to convert later, which should show up as a discount against a comparable ship that was built retrofit-ready even if neither is dual-fuel today.
What this means for a buyer’s decision today
For most buyers, this isn’t a call to chase the newest fuel technology — it’s a call to be realistic about which options are actually proven at scale. LNG offers the most mature infrastructure and the clearest near-term compliance path, which is exactly why it still dominates orders despite not being a permanent answer. Methanol is the more credible “bridge to the future” option for buyers who want a route to deeper decarbonisation without betting on infrastructure that doesn’t exist yet. Ammonia and hydrogen remain genuine long-horizon bets — worth watching, not yet worth ordering around unless your business case specifically spans the 2030s. If you’re weighing a newbuild order against these options, see newbuilding vessels for how the contracting process runs, or talk to a broker about how fuel choice should factor into a specific project.