T&E study finds 45 e-kerosene projects slated for Europe, but materialization uncertain
Holcim to order 1,000 units of Mercedes-Benz eActros 600 trucks

Maersk’s first vessel of large methanol-enabled fleet entering service on Asia-Europe route in February; first of 18

The world’s first large methanol-enabled container vessel has been named “Ane Mærsk” at a ceremony in the shipyard of HD Hyundai Heavy Industries (HD HHI) in Ulsan, South Korea. The vessel is named after Ane Mærsk Mc-Kinney Uggla, the Chair of the A.P. Moller Foundation and A.P. Moller Holding. Ane’s eldest granddaughter served as godmother and christened the vessel by breaking a champagne bottle over the bow.


The 350m “Ane Mærsk” has a container capacity of 16,592 TEU and is powered by an 8-cylinder Hyundai-MAN B&W 8G95ME-C10.5-LGIM-EGRTC dual-fuel engine delivering 44,187 kW. The four auxiliary engines (HiMSEN H32DF-LM (3 x 9 cylinders each 4,320 kW + 1 x 6 cylinders 2,880 kW)) could supply electricity for 87,500 homes. The vessel is fitted with a Wärtsilä shaft generator of 4.0 MW.

Methanol fuel capacity is 16,000 m3 stored in two tanks beside each other, located forward of the engine room. The vessel can sail up to 23,000 nautical miles on methanol corresponding to 41,400 km (1 nautical mile = 1.8 km) when fully bunkered.

“Ane Mærsk” is the first of Maersk’s 18 large methanol-enabled vessels that will be delivered between 2024 and 2025. It is the world’s second methanol-enabled container vessel.

Running on methanol the vessel saves up to approximately 280t of CO2 per day compared to a sister vessel sailing on heavy fuels. When all 12 sister vessels are in operation and have replaced existing “normal” vessels, the CO2 savings will be approximately 1.5 million tonnes per year—almost double the CO2 emissions of the Municipality of Copenhagen in 2022.

In the beginning of February, “Ane Mærsk” will enter service on the AE7 string connecting Asia and Europe. The planned trade lane is: Ningbo, Shanghai; Nansha, Yantian (all China), Tanjung Pelepas (Malaysia), Colombo (Sri Lanka), Port Tangiers (Morocco), Felixstowe (UK), Hamburg (Germany), Antwerp (Belgium), London Gateway (UK), Le Havre (France), Port Tangiers, Jeddah (Saudi Arabia), Abu Dhabi (UAE) and Jebel Ali (UAE). The vessel will bunker in Ulsan, Korea for the maiden voyage.

However, with the current volatile situation in and around the Red Sea / Gulf of Aden, the security risk remains at a significant level, Maersk said. Due to the circumstances, the company is making a number of adjustments to its services. For the AE7 string, that means that this service will currently omit Jeddah, Saudi Arabia—which is on the Red Sea—on its eastbound voyage.

The vessels in the new series have an industry-first innovative design with the bridge and accommodation placed at the very front of the vessel, which enables fuel efficient operations.

This series of vessels will have a transformative impact on our ambition to progress on our industry-leading climate ambitions. It is a visual and operational proof of our commitment to a more sustainable industry. With “Ane Mærsk” and her sister vessels we are expanding our offer to the growing number of businesses aiming to reduce emissions from their supply chains.

—Vincent Clerc, CEO of A.P. Moller-Maersk

“Ane Mærsk” will begin her maiden voyage on green methanol and Maersk continues to work diligently on 2024-2025 sourcing and bunkering solutions for its methanol-enabled vessel fleet.

Maersk defines “green fuels” as fuels with low to very low GHG emissions over their life cycle compared to fossil fuels. Different green fuels achieve different life cycle reductions depending on their production pathway. By “low” Maersk refers to fuels with 65-80% life cycle GHG reductions compared to fossil fuels. This covers, e.g., some biodiesels. ”Very low” refers to fuels with 80-95% life cycle GHG reductions compared to fossil fuels.



I wondered how onboard carbon capture and storage fitted into Maersk's new builds.
Here is the company talking about CC:


It is clearly not in their current builds.
I am hopeful but I don't know whether the design of the 12 methanol ships they are building have been designed to allow relatively easy retrofitting, a subject they briefly mention in general in the article linked.


Make methanol capture the carbon bring the carbon back to make green methanol.


Methanol is a winner for shipping, with or without a degree of desirable carbon capture. Now imagine a world where manufacturing is more localized due to carbon taxes, and these ships are far fewer in number. The best ship is no ship.


The Italians are going for hydrogen for pleasure boating:


They aim for 100 stations in six years for their 100 million euros.

I am not too sure about it myself, as I tend to like methanol for ease of storage and handling in the application, but if it works out and they use green hydrogen it would certainly minimise GHG.

Lewis Cleverdon

The case for Carbon Dioxide capture on board methanol ICE vessels is fractured by the relatively low percentage of CO2 in the exhaust gas, as well as by the energy and infrastrucure required to extract and compress part of it for on-board storage.

A part of Maersk’s interest in developing modular "Reformer Methanol Fuel Cells" [RMFCs] at a scale to suit large ships may well be due to the very high CO2 percentage in their exhaust stream, making it in theory much more easily captured.

However the economics of using green methanol to compress and on-board store green CO2 to try to cut green methanol on-shore production costs, have yet to be shown to be anywhere near viable.

Lewis Cleverdon

"The best ship is no ship . . ."

As a campaign slogal that is liable to get shot down in flames and discredit the user whenever it is applied in public.

First, it is a delusion to suppose that Carbon Taxes will make goods’ production more localised once affordable renewable transport energies come on stream at scale. Green methanol - as the best renewable transport fuel - is a case in point.

Second, without global shipping consider how many commodities (including foods) as well as finished goods must either be foregone by importer nations or be transported by far less energy-efficient road, rail and air freight, as measured in KWh per tonne-kilometre of cargo.

Third, it tends to be highly counter-productive to tell a huge and long established global industry that your goal is not to help it with reforming its fuel usage, but is actually to cause the eradication of the industry asap. All that is achieved is the disempowerment of progressive decision makers within the industry, and the prolonged delay of measures to cut fossil fuel dependence.

The comments to this entry are closed.