Porti & ambiente — le notizie raccolte

29 Maggio 2026 “Cittadini ed armatori: dialogo aperto su navi e città”, per spiegare l’attività della Capitaneria di Porto su controlli per prevenire l’inquinamento da navi, per ascoltare la voce della gente che vive accanto al porto, per ascoltare quella degli armatori. Tutto questo è stato l’oggetto dell’incontro organizzato dalla Capitaneria di Porto sotto la Lanterna, dove è stato presentato il Rapporto Annuale 2025, anno durante il quale sono state effettuate 228 ispezioni di navi italiane e straniere, con oltre 2.600 controlli individuali. In 31 casi sono state individuate deficienze in materia di ossidi di azoto e disposti 8 fermi nave. Sul tenore di zolfo nei combustibili i controlli sono stati 32 e di questi 12 con prelievo e analisi di campione in laboratorio; una sola, in questo caso, l’irregolarità di natura documentale ma subito messa posto. Buone notizie sul fronte delle emissioni di CO₂ e gas serra, dove tutto era regolare. E per rendere maggiormente efficace la spiegazione dell’argomento, sono stati mostrati video e foto delle modalità di controllo tecnico e documentale da parte del Servizio sicurezza della navigazione. “Il porto di Genova è parte della città - ha affermato il comandante della Capitaneria di Porto, ammiraglio Antonio Ranieri - non un'entità separata da essa. Per questo il controllo delle emissioni delle navi non è per noi un adempimento burocratico, ma un impegno concreto verso chi vive e lavora in questa città. I numeri di questo rapporto raccontano un lavoro attento, condotto ogni giorno con rigore tecnico e con la consapevolezza che dietro ogni ispezione c'è la qualità dell'aria che respiriamo tutti”. Mentre i comitati di San Teodoro hanno illustrato il loro sistema di monitoraggio della qualità dell’aria, gli studi condotti, le criticità rilevate, le istanze agli armatori. Criticità peraltro cui hanno detto di essere d’accordo comitati e le associazioni Palmaro, Porto Aperto, Fondazione PRimAvera, Rigenerazione Centro-Ovest, Quartiere Multedo. La Rete associazioni San Teodoro ha detto di apprezzare “la collaborazione proficua instaurata con la Capitaneria di Porto di Genova, che ha permesso primi passi importanti nel contrasto all’inquinamento da fumi delle navi e ha consentito di avviare un confronto con gli armatori. A loro abbiamo chiesto di stipulare un accordo con impegni concreti immediati per ottimizzare i flussi delle navi e il contenimento delle loro emissioni nella criticità del periodo estivo, e a breve termine per affrontare insieme e in modo strutturale il problema dei fumi, elettrificazione banchine, adeguamento flotte, nuovi carburanti, con un meccanismo che definisca diritti e priorità portuali in funzione delle emissioni, premiando chi investe nella sostenibilità ambientale e sociale”. Assarmatori e Confitarma hanno assicurato che “da tempo c’è piena adesione agli obblighi in materia ambientale dettati a livello internazionale, unionale e nazionale, anticipando in alcune occasioni le scadenze fissate dalle normative e confermando quindi l’impegno concreto verso la decarbonizzazione del trasporto marittimo”. Necessaria, a parere di tutti, “la necessità di accelerare sul fronte industriale la disponibilità di combustibili alternativi sostenibili, promuovere un quadro regolatorio globale chiaro e armonizzato e rafforzare lo sviluppo delle infrastrutture, in particolare per il cold ironing, la produzione e diffusione di fuel alternativi sostenibili, con particolare riguardo a bio-LNG ed e-LNG, nonché all’elettrificazione delle banchine”.” Per l’assessora all'Ambiente del Comune di Genova Silvia Pericu “la Capitaneria di Porto – Guardia Costiera si distingue per il costante impegno concreto profuso a favore del dialogo tra cittadini e porto. Crediamo che il Comune debba avere un ruolo importante nel promuovere la diffusione dei dati sull'inquinamento ambientale, per mettere i cittadini in condizione di informarsi in maniera corretta su un tema complesso come questo, facendosi propulsore di azioni di informazione e comunicazione”. Per tutti è indispensabile un costante confronto tra le parti in causa. Dino Frambati

Shipping is a transnational sector competing for energy on a global market and needs effective policies to decarbonize. Here we assess energy transitions under different shipping policies using a sector-coupled global energy system model and connected life-cycle environmental impacts. We find that postponed International Maritime Organization’s ‘net-zero framework’ could increase biofuel use in shipping to 40% by 2050 but might fall short of net-zero targets, which require broader adoption of low-carbon fuels. A combined levy and global fuel standards mechanism accelerates low-carbon fuel adoption, achieving 60% of ammonia penetration as marine fuel. Ammonia emerges as most cost-effective fuel under cross-sectoral competition for several assessed policies, whereas electrification is preferred for vessels with daily bunkering possibilities. To reach global climate targets, ammonia from bioenergy with carbon capture (yielding negative emissions) and e-ammonia are found potentially crucial for shipping. However, this transition risks increasing other environmental impacts, including land use and mineral resource depletion. Ships transport approximately 80% of world trade by volume1and account for about 3% of total global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions2. Without decarbonization measures, shipping emissions could reach 130% of 2008 levels by 2050 as trade expands3. In alignment with the climate target of the Paris Agreement, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) revised its GHG emissions reduction strategy in 2023 (relative to 2008 levels), targeting a minimum reduction of 20% by 2030, 70% by 2040 and net-zero emissions by around 20504. To reach the above reduction targets, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) has proposed the ‘IMO net-zero framework’5and the final approval at IMO is now postponed. This framework is intended to promote the adoption of alternative energy carriers, including methanol, ammonia, hydrogen and methane. The framework includes two sets of ‘mid-term measures’: first, a goal-based marine fuel standard that includes a well-to-wake (WtW) perspective; and second, a pricing mechanism for GHG emissions5. Ships currently burn mostly heavy fuel oil in compression ignition engines but achieving emissions reduction targets require switching to alternative fuels such as ammonia, hydrogen or methanol. The use of simpler molecules as alternative fuel also enables the use of more efficient technologies such as fuel cells (FCs)6. These alternative fuels can be produced from different production pathways—from biomass, renewable electricity or natural gas with carbon capture7,8. The prospects for alternative energy carriers in the shipping sector depend on their technical maturity, performance, environmental impact, cost and so on6. Whereas several studies have assessed the costs and environmental impacts of individual ships utilizing various alternative energy carriers produced from different feedstocks6,7,8,9,10,11, their feasibility largely depends on the specific supply infrastructure12, bunkering facilities11, energy cost7and feedstock availability13. The cost and availability of feedstock and the development of fuel infrastructure rely on developments in other sectors13,14,15. Thus, alternative fuel use in ships creates a complex web of energy system interactions that extend far beyond the maritime sector. Therefore, it is essential to assess the energy transition of shipping fleet within the larger context of the global energy system transition. This is particularly important considering the international nature of shipping, which is generally not included in national goals16. Due to the differences in ship designs, transport functions (for example, passenger, liquid cargo, containers) and operational patterns, a detailed representation of ships are important for analysing specific decarbonization strategies for shipping. Müller–Casseres and Leblanc13evaluated international shipping under 2 °C climate target using different global energy system models (ESM) including COFFEE 1.5, IMACLIM-R 2.0, IMAGE 3.2, PROMETHEUS 1.2, TIAM-UCL 4.1.2 and WITCH. This study also indicates lack of comprehensive representation of the shipping fleet in different global energy system model13. Overall, there is a lack of studies that use global ESMs to evaluate shipping policies to understand decarbonization from a larger context of global energy system. We explore this knowledge gap by evaluating different global shipping policies using a sector-coupled, global, bottom-up energy system model: the Global Energy Transition (GET) model v11. Earlier GET versions were used to assess the shipping sector under broader climate scenarios17,18, considering ten different geographic regions. GET v11 is specifically developed to include a detailed shipping module represented by eight different ship segments (container, cargo and bulk, oil tanker, gas tanker, cargo-short, ferry-short, ferry-long and other ships), more alternative marine fuels (liquid hydrogen, compressed hydrogen, liquid methane, electricity and ammonia), fuel-production routes (biomass gasification, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and natural gas (NG) liquefaction) and shipping powertrains (FC and battery-electric). This model also considers projected changes in new energy-related transport of methanol, biomass and ammonia trade across different regions, in addition to changes in the transportation of coal, oil and gas under different scenarios. Six policies related to shipping are investigated—marine levy, IMO net-zero framework, marine levy and GHG fuel intensity (GFI), marine levy and subsidy, GFI only regulation and high marine levy. The GET model, as in other ESMs, emphasizes cost-efficient pathways to achieve climate objectives, primarily addressing direct CO2and CH4emissions. For informed decision-making, it is important to understand the environmental implications of energy transition beyond GHG emissions. Another key aspect of this study is the inclusion of life-cycle assessment (LCA) to understand trade-offs of shipping energy transition that consider impacts related to the direct emissions, use of materials, embodied energy, fuel infrastructures, fugitive emissions, land-use changes and process emissions. This is achieved by integrating life-cycle environmental indicators from process-specific LCAs into the GET model. This integrated approach elucidates the environmental impacts of the energy transition in the energy sector19,20. The scenarios are designed considering that all sectors are aligned with the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2 (SSP2) ‘middle-of-the-road’ scenario, with the global climate target (limiting global temperature change to <2 °C) and without any climate target. The shipping fleet is specifically modelled using data from the Fourth IMO GHG study21, which includes baseline transport work, logistics analysis of transport work and efficiency improvements. The details of six shipping policies investigated in the study are shown in Table1. The results of three policies that are mainly discussed during MEPC meetings are included in the main text and these are marine levy, IMO net-zero framework and marine levy and GFI. Results regarding other policies are included in Supplementary Figs.1and2. The cost-effective fuel mix and technology choices for shipping vary for different global climate targets, policy cases and ship categories (Fig.1). Shipping will continue to rely on fossil oil in the absence of policy support in a world without carbon constraints. Fossil oil is observed in the fuel mix beyond 2050 for all the assessed policies. Ammonia is the cost-effective fuel option for most ship categories and scenarios. For ships that are operating over shorter distances (ferry-short and cargo-short), electrification is cost effective in most scenarios. An exception to this is the net-zero framework without a global climate target, where methanol engines are found cost effective for most ship categories (reaching more than 50% of all energy demand by 2050). A technological mix of methanol engines and battery-electric propulsion is cost effective for ferry-short and cargo-short under this policy. Many ships continue to operate with a high share of fossil oil under the net-zero framework, as they prefer to pay for remedial units rather than meeting direct compliance targets as marginal abatement cost is higher than US$100 tCO2eq−1. When ships need to pay a levy for GHG emissions during operation ammonia is the cost-effective non-carbon fuel. Ammonia engines only emit N2O during operation, whereas fuels containing carbon have higher operational GHG emissions (CO2and CH4). Energy carriers and technology mixes for global shipping and specific ship categories (in EJ) under different shipping policy scenarios, with and without a global climate target. In the case of liquid tankers, there is a decrease in the transport demand as the global demand for oil for energy purposes decreases. In the case of gas tankers, even though there is less demand for natural gas, the model shows an increase in ammonia trading. For the bulk tankers, the transport demand for coal is replaced by increased trade in biomass. The red line in the first row for total shipping represents the marginal carbon abatement cost (MAC) (US$ tCO2eq−1), that is, the cost associated with reducing an additional tonne of CO2in shipping sector during the specified timestep. In a carbon-constrained society (with global climate target), greater adoption of FCs is observed for all policy options when all sectors compete for the resources. FCs are cost effective mainly for bulk and general cargo ships, which have relatively low installed engine capacities (low design speeds) and higher utilization rates compared to other ship types, resulting in fuel cost savings (high efficiency of FC), and this saving compensates investment costs (low installed power means lower investment cost). Highest adoption of FC for these ships (almost 100%) can be observed in policy cases with levy. Methanol FCs do not appear cost effective as carbon-free alternatives are more attractive in carbon-constrained scenarios and FCs are generally less competitive in scenarios without carbon constraints. The adoption of hydrogen engines (liquid hydrogen) is a promising option for ferries and cruise ships operating on longer routes (ferry-long) (reaching around 100% by 2080), as ammonia is not considered a feasible option for passenger transport due to safety concerns. Methane is not a cost-effective alternative fuel in any scenario due to its higher GHG emissions compared to alternatives (due to engine methane slip and supply chain leakage). Scenarios that predominantly utilize ammonia engines exhibit an increased energy demand (low engine efficiency), whereas in those cases with greater adoption of FCs and battery-electric, the demand for energy supply decreases (high-efficiency powertrains). The fuel-production pathway for shipping also differs with respect to policies and climate targets (Fig.2). Without climate targets, NG-based and bio-based fuel pathways are found common (no e-fuels present). In the marine levy case, grey ammonia (involving steam methane reforming of NG) is shown, as the levy focuses exclusively on ship operational GHG emissions. This indicates the importance of including a life-cycle perspective in policies, for example, by adding a GFI, to reduce fossil fuel dependence. The net-zero framework finds the adoption of biomethanol cost effective in the scenario without a global climate target. A combination of blue ammonia, biomethanol, BECCS-ammonia and grey ammonia is cost effective with a levy and GFI. Results show shares of blue ammonia and BECCS-ammonia increase over time (since the tier 1 target becomes stringent) and with the expansion of energy conversion capacities. Fuel-production pathways under different scenarios and the related marginal costs for shipping in US$ GJ−1for 2050 and 2080. Only shares >10% are shown in numbers. The marginal cost comprises three parts: the cost associated with investments in ships; the cost for the fuel infrastructure and the primary energy costs, including the costs for biomass, marginal electricity cost, natural gas, crude oil and so on. The higher cost in the climate scenario is mainly associated with the higher marginal cost of primary energy as different sectors compete for biomass and electricity. In all policy options with global climate targets, ammonia mainly includes BECCS-ammonia and e-ammonia. Initially, only a small share of e-ammonia is cost effective. However, the share increases over time, reaching more than 50% by 2080. The BECCS-ammonia share increases until 2060 and then gradually declines. In these scenarios, all the biomass potential is utilized from 2050 (Supplementary Information) and onwards. The marginal energy cost for shipping is high for scenarios with a global climate target. This is due to the high marginal cost associated with cleaner primary energy sources, such as biomass and renewable electricity (Fig.3). Primary energy demands required for the different policy scenarios (in EJ) and the marginal energy costs related to the primary energy supply (in US$ GJ−1) between 2020 and 2080. Nuclear energy and renewable electricity are mainly associated with the production of the e-fuel used in shipping (e-ammonia). The marginal cost of biomass increases with demand, whereas the marginal cost of electricity remains stable over the years as investment in renewables increases. The increase in primary energy is due to the low efficiencies of the fuel-production pathways, including biofuels, e-fuels and blue fuels. The demand for primary energy to meet energy demand in all sectors including shipping results in competition for limited available resources and influences marginal cost of the primary energy (Fig.3). The high demand for biomass is observed in the net-zero framework and in the combination of marine levy with GFI policies (biomethanol and BECCS-ammonia production) even without a global climate target. Unlike net-zero framework, for policies that include a marine levy without global climate target, there is a higher demand for NG (for grey and blue ammonia production). For scenarios with a global climate target, biomass is a crucial resource for all sectors, resulting in a high marginal cost for biomass (reaching around US$80 EJ−1by 2080). In addition, e-ammonia production in these scenarios needs a higher demand for electricity from renewables and nuclear power. In all cases, compared to the scenario without a policy and climate target, there is increased demand for primary energy, which is due to substantial energy losses in the comparatively inefficient production pathways, especially for biofuels and e-fuels. This indicates that larger investments in energy supply and the cost of primary energy will be important for the energy transition. Monte Carlo analysis (Fig.4) demonstrates that the cost-effective choice of shipping fuel is sensitive to variation in different parameters. Biomass availability and permanent carbon storage availability each represent a substantial portion of model uncertainty (approximately 25% variance each) in determining the balance between use of biofuels and e-fuels in shipping (Fig.4b,c). Sensitivity analysis (Fig.5) further examines the robustness of long-term fuel mix outcomes to uncertainty parameters under the net-zero framework with global climate target. Higher biomass availability (Fig.5a) accelerates the transition away from fossil fuels and reduces the cost-effective share of e-fuels through greater biofuel adoption. Conversely, accounting for indirect land-use change emissions (Fig.5b) diminishes biofuel competitiveness, prolonging fossil fuel use and increasing e-fuel adoption. Limited permanent carbon storage availability (Fig.5c) reduces the e-fuel use and increases use of biofuel as reduced storage capacity limits the net-negative emission potential of BECCS pathways. Monte Carlo showing the potential for cost-effective use of biofuels, e-fuels and fossil fuel under scenario marine levy and GFI with global climate target. Parameters, including biomass availability, permanent carbon storage availability, battery costs, fuel cell costs, fuel infrastructure costs and energy conversion efficiencies, are varied in the simulation run with 1,000 iterations.a, The uncertainty in distribution of cost-effective shipping fuel choices showing 50th percentile as line, 25th–75th percentile (whiskers) and maximum and minimum.b, Monte Carlo results for cost-effective fuel choice for shipping sorted by biomass availability.c, Monte Carlo results for cost-effective fuel choice for shipping sorted by permanent carbon storage availability. Biomass availability of 100 EJ and permanent carbon storage of 50 GtCO2are found to be the minimum requirements to meet the climate target under the RCP26 scenario in the model. a, Fuel mix ranges for high versus low biomass availability (200 EJ and 100 EJ, respectively).b, Fuel mix ranges with and without indirect land-use change emissions for biomass (12–18 gCO2eq MJ−1).c, Fuel mix ranges for high versus low permanent carbon storage availability (1,500 GtCO2and 50 GtCO2, respectively).d, Fuel and technology mix ranges for very low versus base case methane leakage assumptions (0.1% and 0.5%, respectively).e, Fuel and technology mix ranges for low versus higher ammonia engine N2O emissions assumptions (0.03 g kWh−1and 0.1 g kWh−1, respectively).f, Fuel and technology mix ranges for slower versus base case technology expansion rates (10% and 20% annual capacity growth, respectively). Solid lines represent base case assumptions; dashed lines represent alternative scenarios. Shaded areas indicate the range between scenarios. For technology-specific parameters, very low methane leakage assumption (Fig.5d) in the supply chain and the engine slip marginally improves the LNG competitiveness in the short term as replacement for fossil oil but do not alter ammonia’s long-term dominance. Higher N2O emissions from ammonia engines (Fig.5e) substantially reduce the cost-effective share of ammonia internal combustion engines (ICE), with this share largely captured by ammonia fuel cells, which offer cleaner combustion. This scenario also marginally extends the use of fossil oil engines. Nevertheless, ammonia remains the dominant fuel as BECCS-ammonia’s net-negative emissions offset operational N2O contributions. Slower technology expansion rates (Fig.5f) extend fossil fuel reliance but do not fundamentally alter the eventual transition to ammonia-dominated fuel mixes. Across all sensitivity cases, ammonia emerges as the cost-effective long-term fuel choice, demonstrating the robustness of this finding to parameter uncertainty. Figure6illustrates the environmental impacts of shipping fuel and technology mixes for net-zero framework and marine levy and GFI scenarios derived from the LCA-GET integration. The environmental impacts related to other scenarios and resource use-fossil are given in Supplementary Figs.3and4. It may be noted that these assessments are post processed, and the environmental impacts are therefore not optimized in the model. Instead, they are derived from cost-optimal results considering the constraints included in the different scenarios. The results include the impacts associated with the fuel infrastructure, indirect land-use changes, fugitive emissions and emissions other than CO2, CH4and N2O, which are not explicitly covered in the IMO-LCA guidelines (basis for GFI). A transition to net-zero GHG emissions from a life-cycle perspective by 2050 is not found to be cost effective in the model without global climate targets for any of the policy scenarios. On the other hand, if there is a global climate target the shipping sector can contribute with negative GHG emissions. This is mainly due to the use of BECCS-ammonia, which involves the permanent storage of carbon from biomass, thereby reducing atmospheric CO2concentrations. Tank-to-wake, well-to-tank and well-to-wake environmental impacts derived from the LCA-GET integration including climate impact, particulate matter formation potential (PMFP), terrestrial acidification potential, marine eutrophication potential, material resource use (RU-metals and minerals) and land use. The use of grey ammonia in the case of the marine levy without global climate target or GFI increases most of the environmental impacts (Supplementary Fig.4), including the climate impact (methane leakage), particulate matter formation potential (extraction and processing of NG), acidification potential (extraction and processing of NG), eutrophication potential (NOxfrom ammonia engines), resource use—metals and minerals (material infrastructure) and resource use—fossil (NG use). GFI with levy and net-zero framework are found to be effective in reducing the life-cycle climate impact and resource use—fossil. Even though GFI regulation (in levy with GFI) calls for mandatory reduction to net zero by 2050 in line with the IMO-LCA guidelines, the results do not show the attainment of net-zero emissions. This difference in climate impact (higher than net zero) with this policy option (levy with GFI and without climate target) is because of the inclusion of embodied emissions in the infrastructure (material and energy), indirect land-use changes and fugitive emissions, which are not explicitly included in the IMO-LCA guidelines. In the case of the net-zero framework and GFI with levy, there are reductions in the particulate matter and acidification impacts when considering only the tank-to-wake (TtW) perspective, whereas the total WtW impact is higher due to emissions of pollutants during biomass gasification and biomass harvesting. The land-use impact also increases in these cases due to the use of BECCS-ammonia and biomethanol. With global climate targets, a significant reduction in climate change, reaching net-negative emissions, is observed (due to the higher share of BECCS-ammonia). In these scenarios, there are also reductions in marine eutrophication (use of FCs) and fossil energy resource use. Reductions of the particulate matter and acidification impacts are observed, when considering only TtW, although the total WtW impact is higher. Although this trend resembles the scenarios without a global target, the overall increase in impact remains minimal due to the higher shares of FCs in these scenarios (lower TtW emissions and fuel savings due to high efficiency). Metals and mineral resource depletion (renewable electricity infrastructure for e-fuels) and land-use change (biomass for biofuels) significantly increase in the case of the global climate target, as compared with the base case. After 2050, due to expanded adoption of e-fuels, land-use impact remains constant. To understand the energy transition of the shipping sector, different shipping-specific policies are reviewed from a global energy system perspective. Without regulatory intervention, the shipping sector will rely on fossil-derived oil in a world without carbon constraints. The assessed shipping policies can drive different levels of energy transition for shipping. In the absence of policies that provide incentives to reduce the life-cycle GHG emissions of marine fuels, there is a significant risk of increased climate impact from shipping, as illustrated by the marine levy without climate targets due to the use of grey ammonia (high climate impact in the fuel-production phase). This underscores the need to include the WtW perspective in policy considerations such as GFI, rather than adopting a standalone economic policy without a life-cycle perspective. The combination of a levy and strict GFI level shows the greatest reduction in climate impact among the policies investigated. The model shows cost-effective use of biofuel in the net-zero framework without a global climate target. As biofuel adoption is limited to achieving the base compliance (tier 2), it is not sufficient to meet the net-zero-emissions target by 2050. This is also indicated in several reports22,23. Continued use of fossil oil is due to the relatively low remedial fee for direct compliance (tier 1) than carbon abatement cost, and paying this low fee is likely to be cost effective for shipping companies. Transition above this level may be attributed to the high cost of abatement required to overcome the technology transition inertia13and the higher costs for low-carbon fuels7. Large-scale deployment of alternative fuels at scale will require trillions of dollars of investment in land-side infrastructure12, and decarbonizing the entire shipping sector in all regions will be challenging16. With a global climate target, CCS represents a cost-effective technology in many sectors, while sectors such as shipping adopt carbon-free energy carriers (ammonia and electricity). With global climate targets and policies with marine levies, ammonia is a cost-effective fuel choice for most ship categories. Electrification will be part of the energy transition strategy when there is a possibility for ships to charge frequently24,25. Ferries and cruise ships for which electrification is not practicable, and when ammonia use raises safety concerns for passengers, liquid hydrogen is the cost-effective choice. Although ammonia engines are considered to be cost-efficient in most policy scenarios, the sensitivity results show that adoption depends largely on nitrous oxide reduction potential, efficiency improvements and biomass availability. Ammonia production under stringent global carbon reduction targets mainly comes from BECCS and e-fuel routes. Ammonia from BECCS largely depends on the availability of permanent carbon storage facilities. Ammonia production from NG routes, even considering carbon capture, is not cost effective, as it is not sufficient to achieve net-zero emissions owing to the practical challenges of achieving 100% carbon capture and preventing methane leakage in the supply chain. All sectors compete for climate-neutral, primary energy sources and technologies, creating constraints on resources such as biomass. Switching to carbon-based biofuels (methanol and methane) is in general not cost effective in a world with stringent climate targets. Instead, the net-negative impact from BECCS is relatively cost effective. This allows compensation for residual emissions in other sectors, embodied emissions and other GHG emissions, including CH4and N2O. Net-negative emissions can be achieved with direct air capture with CCS, albeit with high cost and uncertainty26. This role of BECCS as a cost-effective measure for different sectors to meet the ambitious climate targets has been described previously27,28,29and this study shows it is also important for the shipping sector. BECCS importance to compensate residual emissions is mentioned in the IPCC sixth assessment report30. The different energy transition paths with and without carbon constraints indicate that in the real world, considering the diverse locations of fuel bunkering, regional or national climate targets are important to achieve zero or negative WtW climate impacts for shipping. Our study focuses on long-term regulatory equilibrium because the model does not generate results useful for near-term insights. Further research in the following areas can improve understanding of the shipping transition. First, a more detailed representation of biomass types and biofuel options could deepen the insights of cost-effective biofuel use in shipping. Second, the possibility of retrofitting could potentially speed up fuel adoption and possibly favour fuels requiring fewer extensive vessel modifications. Third, onboard carbon capture and hybrid options can also play an important role in different policy scenarios and evolving engine technologies and operating practices, particularly for methane and ammonia pathways, and thus potentially alter the results. Fourth, technology lock-in effects can create path dependencies, where, for example, methanol can utilize existing fuel infrastructure with minimal modifications. Fifth, energy efficiency measures are essential for, not least, short-term emissions reductions and enforcing policies targeting these could be a cost-effective way to reduce the climate impact from shipping. The relationship between efficiency measures and fuel selection needs further investigation, even if our model accounts for an exogenous efficiency improvement of 15–30% (depending on ship segment), which reduces the absolute energy requirement for different fuel choices. This study highlights the importance of including climate impacts associated with embodied emissions in infrastructure (material and energy), indirect land-use changes and emissions of other GHGs in the IMO-LCA guidelines to avoid burden shifting. The transition towards grey ammonia has significant WtW impacts, indicating that transitions that are dependent upon fossil fuels (without CCS) should be avoided, as the environmental burden is shifted and worsened. The net-negative impact of BECCS-ammonia, which is important to achieve the net-zero target, requires sustainable sourcing of biomass31. Also, if there are other potential products from biorefineries7, then a suitable allocation needs to be performed and can result in lower reduction potential. In addition, adoption of BECCS-ammonia increases the environmental impacts linked to land use, mineral resource depletion, particulate matter and acidification. Acidification, particulate matter and eutrophication are due to the use of fertilizers and emissions from biorefineries15,32,33,34. Transitioning to e-ammonia results in higher mineral resource depletion due to infrastructure requirements, including wind and solar power and electrolysers6. The implementation of the IMO net-zero framework was postponed in autumn 2025, and this study offers evidence to support the continuation of talks. Our research shows that to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping it is important to move forward with a strong global policy and to ensure absolute reduction it needs to consider life-cycle emission as is the case of both the IMO net-zero framework and marine levy + GFI than levying direct emissions. Although the IMO net-zero framework is a significant intermediate step, stricter regulations are most likely needed to achieve the net-zero greenhouse gas targets. The study also shows the reliability of the long-term results of decarbonization to technological uncertainties and supports a technology-neutral regulatory approach. GET v11 is a sector-coupled, energy system optimization (linear programming), mathematical model based on a bottom-up approach set up in 10-year time steps. The model minimizes the total system cost by optimizing the energy supply and capacity expansion of all energy generation, conversion, storage and transmission, while meeting specified energy demands and carbon constraints. The model includes nine modules: primary energy supply; energy conversion and storage; carbon capture and storage or utilization; fuel trade and distribution; emission conversion using a simplified carbon cycle; the electricity sector (including time slices for regional variable renewable energy conditions); the transport sector; feedstocks and the heat sector. In the model, primary energy sources (coal, oil, NG, nuclear, wind, hydro, solar and biomass) are converted into different energy carriers to meet end-use sector demands. Techno-economic interactions between technologies are parameterized using costs, efficiencies, load factors and lifetimes. Whereas the model minimizes the total system cost, it incorporates constraints regarding: annual or total extraction limits on available energy sources; expansion rates for technologies; load balance constraints; atmospheric CO2levels; restricted trading of some energy carriers (for example, electricity) and maximum allowable permanent CO2-storage capacity. A comprehensive description of the GET v11 model is given in ref.35, and data used are listed inSupplementary Information. A time horizon of 2010–2150 is considered, with optimization accounting for annual operations and for wind and solar sub-annual operations. The inputs are provided for every 10-year timestep (2020, 2030, 2040, …). The results are analysed for 2020–2080, and the period 2080–2150 is used as a dummy to avoid end-of-period distortions. The world is divided into ten geographic regions: North America (NAM); Europe (EUR); Pacific Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (PAO); centrally planned Asia, mainly China (CPA); the former Soviet Union (FSU); Latin America (LAM); Africa (AFR); Middle East (MEA); South Asia, mainly India (SAS) and non-OECD Pacific Asia (PAS). The model also uses resource-based time slices based on wind and solar power generation levels. On the basis of the wind and solar resource availability in 1 year, the hours are aggregated into 16 time slices. The slices are created individually for each region. Trade in primary energy carriers and specific secondary energy carriers (for example, methanol, ammonia, liquid hydrogen and liquid methane) is allowed between regions while deciding on the investment, operation, supply and demand. The trade of energy carriers is linked with costs, considering the mass and volume of fuel transported and the distance between regions. GET v11 includes CH4emissions (0.5%) in the NG supply chain36and methane leakage (0.5%) during methane production, liquefaction and distribution when used in shipping36. In addition, the model considers CH4slips for methane/LNG engines (1 g kWh−1for two-stroke ICE and 4 g kWh−1for four-stroke ICE) and N2O emissions (0.03 g kWh−1) for ammonia engines7,37. The mathematical formulation of the emissions for different regions and times updated in GET v11 is shown in equation (1), where EMUPis the emissions upstream (representing all emissions, except for transport),Pis the input energy converted in the process such that ei is the input energy and eo is the energy output, EF represents the emissions factor, NG is natural gas, LNG represent liquefied NG,CSLrepresents methane leakage in the NG supply,CDLrepresents methane leakage during liquefaction and distribution andSCCSrepresents the total permanent storage of carbon. The global permanent storage availability is restricted to 2,000 GtCO2. The upstream emissions for shipping are calculated using equation (1), specifically accounting for the share of each fuel going to shipping. The downstream emissions or operational emissions of shipping (and other transport sectors) are calculated using equation (2). The upstream and downstream emissions for shipping represent the total emissions that need to be achieved for the GFI standard. The same emissions as in the IMO-LCA guidelines are included, that is, CO2, CH4and N2O. In equation (2), EMSHIPis the emissions from ship operation for each ship segment, EC represents the input energy for a specific energy converter, type represents ICE, FC or battery-electric and EFeirepresents the emissions factor for a specific fuel. Total emissions are calculated considering all upstream emissions and emissions from all end-use sectors, including all transport modes. All other mathematical formulations are adopted from GET v1038. The gross domestic product (GDP), population and demand projections for all sectors (except transport) for different regions are based on the SSP2 scenario from the IIASA GGI Scenario Database39. Transport demand scenarios for road, rail and aviation are taken from GET v10, which are calculated considering the SSP2 scenario40. The detailed modelling of the shipping sector (sub-module of the transport sector) and the energy conversion module (representing the demands and potentials of alternative fuels) is one of the refinements in GET v11. The shipping sector is represented by: (1) container ships; (2) bulk and general cargo carriers; (3) liquid tankers; (4) gas tankers; (5) ferry-long; (6) ferry-short; (7) cargo-short and (8) other ship type. Categories (1)–(4) have the highest global energy demands. Ferry-long and ferry-short represent ships for passenger transport, cargo-short represents inland and coastal cargo transport over short distances, and other ship type refers to all other transport work, including service vessels. Ammonia is not considered an option for passenger transport for safety reasons. All vessels are assumed to meet Tier III NOxrequirement; therefore, SCR is considered mandatory for ammonia, diesel engines, and two-stroke engines as NOx-abatement technology and cost is added accordingly. The projected transport work for shipping is derived through a regression equation as in the logistic analysis model used in the Fourth IMO GHG Study2. This approach estimates the future growth of transport work by examining historical relationships between transport work and relevant growth drivers. For non-energy-related transport work, per capita GDP serves as the growth driver, whereas for energy-related transport work, the drivers are global oil demand, coal demand, gas demand and other fuel demands. For energy-related transport work, the GET model outputs are used in the regression equation of the logistic model, and this is done by iteration. For the first run, the base values of fossil fuel and biomass consumption are taken from the respective IIASA SSP-RCP scenarios and used to derive energy-related transport work. After the first run, new consumption patterns for fossil fuels and biomass are taken as output from the GET based on cost-effective scenarios. New shipping transport demands for energy use for fossil and biomass are recalculated using the regression equation of the logistic model but this time using the new consumption pattern obtained from the first run of the GET model. This allows more consistent transport demand in line with the model values. However, there is also new transport demand for hydrogen carriers (methanol, liquid hydrogen and ammonia). This is taken separately from the export–import module of GET results in the first run. The trade of these hydrogen carriers is calculated in tonne-miles based on the energy traded in mass (energy density and energy trade) and the distance between regions. These shipping demands are then added to the model. On the basis of this updated transport demand, the GET model is run again for the final results. Demand projections are detailed in Supplementary Note1and are shown in Supplementary Fig.5. This approach allows shipping demand to the dynamics of the response endogenously to energy transition: for example, oil tanker demand decreases as global oil consumption decreases under climate constraints, whereas new demand arises for ammonia and methanol transport between regions. The energy demand per unit of transport work is established using fleet data and activities from 2012 and 2018, as described in ref.2. In addition, the change in energy demand that reflects anticipated efficiency improvements is exogenously modelled based on previous estimates2. Efficiency improvement mainly includes operational and technical efficiencies other than the powertrain and is considered different for different vessels (Supplementary Table1). Fleet capacity and fuel supply infrastructure is tracked using an aggregated stock with depreciation based on assumed vessel lifetimes of 30 years for all ship segments. New investments in each 10-year timestep add to the existing stock, whereas older capacity depreciates exponentially. The adoption of vessels with new technology is also limited to growth rate of 20%. Monte Carlo analysis was performed to examine the sensitivity of our results to the parameter values. The parameters changed include biomass availability, permanent carbon storage availability, battery costs, fuel cell costs, fuel infrastructure costs, energy conversion efficiencies, carbon capture cost and powertrain efficiencies, and the parameters are changed considering uniform distribution. The model was run with 1,000 iterations. Sensitivity assessment is carried out considering different key parameters: (1) biomass availability, (2) indirect land-use change, (3) permanent carbon storage availability, (4) leakage of methane and methane slip of LNG engines, (5) N2O emissions from ammonia engines and (6) expansion rate of new technology. More details on parameter assumptions for sensitivity assessment are provided in Supplementary Note2. Various technologies, including onboard carbon capture, onboard energy generation (solar, wind-assisted propulsion), hybrids and nuclear power, are not considered in the model as options to reduce the GHG emissions from shipping. Biomass supply potential includes biomass sources that can be extracted in a sustainable way, including sources rich in lignin and cellulose, starch and sugar, used cooking oil and rest-flows and waste from agriculture, forestry and society, for example straw, sawdust, manure, sludge, animal fats and food waste. However, we have done simplifications by choosing the most cost-effective conversion pathway as proxy for all biomass conversions. The impact of land-use change is not included in the model constraints for the GFI and net-zero framework (even though included in the IMO-LCA guidelines). Geologic carbon sequestration and the infrastructure for CO2transport are assumed to expand at similar rates as carbon capture technologies in energy conversion processes. The retrofitting option and the present age of the fleet are not considered in the model. The assessment considers the SSP2 scenario only; other SSP scenarios might be explored in future work. Leakage of methane in the NG supply chain is considered to be 0.5% in the model, whereas in reality it varies significantly depending on geographic region36. Our model excludes several real-world technology adoption constraints: technology lock-in effects where early investments create path dependencies, learning-curve advantages for technologies deployed sooner and the additional costs associated with being first movers in unproven technologies. Regional tariffs, trade agreements and geopolitical interactions are not considered in the logistic model-based transport demand used in the study. The relative cost-effectiveness ranking of fuel paths under the evaluated policies would be negligible, but different demand scenarios would alter the absolute amount of fuel transition requirements. The model’s aggregated capacity stock approach with 30-year depreciation does not capture non-uniform fleet age distributions, strategic early retirement decisions or retrofitting options that could accelerate transitions. In practice, economic incentives from strong policy signals could induce early scraping of inefficient vessels, whereas retrofitting could allow existing vessels to adopt compatible fuels (particularly methanol and LNG) without full replacement. These dynamics could accelerate or alter transition pathways compared to our model results. Six different shipping policies are investigated: three are included in the main article and the others inSupplementary Information. The policies are represented by constraints in the model, as detailed below, and more details on the policy model are given inSupplementary Information. Marine levy: the levy applies to the levels of direct GHG emissions from the combustion of marine fuels: US$50 tCO2−1from 2030, increased by US$50 tCO2−1every 10 years until 2050 and then maintained at US$150 tCO2−1for the remainder of the century. The total levy is the product of the levy rate at different time periods and the ship emissions during different time periods, as in equation (2). The total cost of the levy is included in the total cost in the model. IMO net-zero framework: the net-zero framework has a technical element and an economic element. The technical part is the GFI target that governs the maximum permissible GHG emissions over the life cycle per unit of energy used in shipping (gCO2eqMJ−1). Two targets are set as: a tier 2 base target; and a tier 1 direct compliance target (the latter being more stringent). The economic component of the mechanism penalizes, or rewards, ships based on their compliance with the tier 2 criteria. Vessels that do not comply with tier 2 must secure remedial units at a cost of US$380 tCO2eq−1, whereas vessels that meet tier 2 but not tier 1 are required to purchase remedial units at US$100 tCO2eq−1. Vessels that achieve GFI better than tier 1 earn surplus units. The system imposes a cost of US$380 tCO2eq−1for emissions exceeding the tier 2 threshold and US$100 tCO2eq−1for emissions that lie between tier 1 and tier 2. In addition, 20% of the system revenues are allocated to vessels that utilize zero-emissions fuels. The ship-specific GFI for each time period is calculated as the sum of the shipping-specific upstream emissions (equation (1)) and the shipping emissions (equation (2)), along with the ship-specific energy use. Levy and GFI: this is implemented by imposing a charge on emissions from shipping as an additional expense in the model, similar to the marine levy. In addition, the shipping energy use must be tier 1 compliant. A constraint stipulating that the GFI of each ship must be below the tier 1 threshold is implemented in the model. The shipping-specific policy measures are assessed for two cases: first, for a world without any climate reduction ambitions; second, for a world meeting the 2 °C climate target. In the first case, the GET model is run without any carbon constraints, and in the second case, with a carbon budget of 905 GtCO2(for 2010–2100), based on representative concentration pathway (RCP) 2.641. To consider wider environmental implications of the shipping energy transition, a broader life-cycle assessment is needed than the climate-focused IMO-LCA guidelines (limited to CO2, CH4and N2O emissions) used for calculating the GFI (and the cost optimization in GET). It is also important with a method that includes the fuel infrastructure, resource extraction, indirect land use and other emissions and captures temporal changes in the energy system over different time steps. Prospective LCA rather than the attribution approach is better suited for forward-looking policy analysis, as it maintains temporal consistency with energy system evolution. Hence, pLCA calculation as post-processing is performed in this work to assess the WtW environmental impacts for different fuel and propulsion mixes in the assessed shipping policy scenarios. Because the depth of the technology description is much more detailed in the pLCA, the pLCA is integrated into GET in various steps, and WtW analysis is performed in the post-processing step. The integration approach ensures that the key parameters, such as efficiency, in GET are harmonized with the process-specific pLCA in terms of energy flows. For more details see Supplementary Note2and ref.35. The WtW impacts include embodied emissions, fugitive emissions, direct and indirect land uses and primary energy extraction that are not explicitly mentioned in the IMO-LCA Guidelines considering different temporal scopes for the optimized fuel and propulsion mixes for different scenarios. The temporal scope from 2020 to 2100 is also considered in the process-specific LCA based on the time-specific parameters in the GET model for around 90 processes that are directly and indirectly connected to shipping. Inventory data for LCA are adjusted to avoid double-counting the impacts on downstream energy system supply chains, where the analysis is gate to gate. This involves setting the energy inputs of life-cycle inventory processes to zero, as these inputs are already represented as distinct processes within the GET model. Impacts associated with energy input are added after analysing the electricity mix from the GET output. The life-cycle inventory primarily relies on process-based data sourced from earlier studies6,7,42and uses the pLCA data set (premise) v1.5.8 tool43with background data from ecoinvent v3.1044. Premise v1.5.843is used to include the time-dependent sectoral transformation of the infrastructure, materials and embodied energy, and this temporal development is based on the IMAGE model45considering scenarios from SSP2 base and SSP2–RCP26, respectively46. Environmental impacts are assessed for seven midpoint impact categories: climate impact, particulate matter formation, terrestrial acidification, marine eutrophication, land use, resource use—fossil and resource use—metals and minerals. The climate impact is based on the global warming potential over 100 years and is estimated based on IPCC AR647. The other environmental impacts are estimated based on EF 3.0. TheSupplementary Informationinclude major parts of the GET model and data that support the findings of this study. The GET v11 model for net-zero framework scenario is available via GitHub athttps://github.com/fayaskanchiralla/Global-Energy-Transition-model-v11.git. UNCTDReview of Maritime Transport 2022(United Nations, 2022). Faber, J. et al.Fourth IMO GHG Study(CE Delft, 2020). UNCTADReview of Maritime Transport 2023(United Nations, 2023). Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC).MEPChttps://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/Pages/MEPC-default.aspx(2023). IMO, MEPCCircular Letter No.5005: DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI, M.E.p. committee, Editor(IMO & MEPC, 2025). Kanchiralla, F. M. et al. Life-cycle assessment and costing of fuels and propulsion systems in future fossil-free shipping.Environ. Sci. Technol.56, 12517–12531 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar Kanchiralla, F. M., Brynolf, S. & Mjelde, A. Role of biofuels, electro-fuels, and blue fuels for shipping: environmental and economic life cycle considerations.Energy Environ. Sci.17, 6393–6418 (2024). ArticleGoogle Scholar Stolz, B. et al. Techno-economic analysis of renewable fuels for ships carrying bulk cargo in Europe.Nat. Energy7, 203–212 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar Korberg, A. D. et al. Techno-economic assessment of advanced fuels and propulsion systems in future fossil-free ships.Renewable Sustain. Energy Rev.142, 110861 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar Perčić, M., Vladimir, N. & Fan, A. Life-cycle cost assessment of alternative marine fuels to reduce the carbon footprint in short-sea shipping: a case study of Croatia.Appl. Energy279, 115848 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar Kanchiralla, F. M. et al. How do variations in ship operation impact the techno-economic feasibility and environmental performance of fossil-free fuels?A life cycle study. Appl. Energy350, 121773 (2023). Google Scholar Ovrum, E. et al. (eds)Energy Transition Outlook 2023: Maritime Forecast to 2050(DNV, 2023). Müller-Casseres, E. et al. International shipping in a world below 2 °C.Nat. Clim. Change14, 600–607 (2024). ArticleGoogle Scholar Ueckerdt, F. et al. Potential and risks of hydrogen-based e-fuels in climate change mitigation.Nat. Clim. Change11, 384–393 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar Speizer, S. et al. Integrated assessment modeling of a zero-emissions global transportation sector.Nat. Commun.15, 4439 (2024). ArticleGoogle Scholar Bullock, S., Mason, J. & Larkin, A. The urgent case for stronger climate targets for international shipping.Clim. Policy22, 301–309 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar Taljegard, M. et al. Cost-effective choices of marine fuels in a carbon-constrained world: results from a global energy model.Environ. Sci. Technol.48, 12986–12993 (2014). ArticleGoogle Scholar Hansson, J. et al. The potential role of ammonia as marine fuel—based on energy systems modeling and multi-criteria decision analysis.Sustainability12, 3265 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar Xu, L. et al. An Environmental Assessment Framework for Energy System Analysis (EAFESA): the method and its application to the European energy system transformatio.J. Cleaner Prod.243, 118614 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar Volkart, K., Mutel, C. L. & Panos, E. Integrating life cycle assessment and energy system modelling: methodology and application to the world energy scenarios.Sustainable Prod. Consumption16, 121–133 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar Reduction of GHG emissions from Ships: Fourth IMO GHG Study 2020(IMO, 2021). IMO’s New Net Zero Framework: Assessing the Potential Options and Costs of Compliance(UMAS & UCL, 2025). E, T.IMO Net-Zero Framework: Assessing the impact of the IMO’s draft Net-Zero Framework(Transport & Environment, 2025). Kanchiralla, F. M. et al. Environmental and economic assessment of electric ferries with different lithium-ion battery technologies.Appl. Energy396, 126274 (2025). ArticleGoogle Scholar Moon, H. S. et al. Exploring the cost and emissions impacts, feasibility and scalability of battery electric ships.Nat. Energy10, 41–54 (2024). ArticleGoogle Scholar Chatterjee, S. & Huang, K. W. Unrealistic energy and materials requirement for direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways.Nat. Commun.11, 3287 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar Millinger, M. et al. Diversity of biomass usage pathways to achieve emissions targets in the European energy system.Nat. Energy10, 226–242 (2025). Google Scholar Muratori, M. et al. EMF-33 insights on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).Climatic Change163, 1621–1637 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Alternative pathways to the 1.5 °C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies.Nat. Clim. Change8, 391–397 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar Arias, P. A. et al. inClimate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis(eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 33–144 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021). Georgiadou, M. (ed.)Development of Outlook for the Necessary Means to Build Industrial Capacity for Drop-in Advanced Biofuels(European Commission, 2024). Costa, M. et al. Sustainability assessment of the whole biomass-to-energy chain of a combined heat and power plant based on biomass gasification: biomass supply chain management and life cycle assessment.J. Environ. Manage.317, 115434 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar Zang, G. et al. Life cycle assessment of power-generation systems based on biomass integrated gasification combined cycles.Renewable Energy149, 336–346 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions.Nat. Clim. Change4, 850–853 (2014). ArticleGoogle Scholar Kanchiralla, F. M.Energy Transition towards Sustainable Shipping: Environmental and Economic Life Cycle Considerations(Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, 2025). Balcombe, P. et al. The natural gas supply chain: the importance of methane and carbon dioxide emissions.ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng.5, 3–20 (2016). ArticleGoogle Scholar Esquivel-Elizondo, S. et al. Climate impact of direct and indirect N2O emissions from the ammonia marine fuel value chain.Environ. Sci. Technol.59, 9037–9048 (2025). ArticleGoogle Scholar Lehtveer, M., Brynolf, S. & Grahn, M. What future for electrofuels in transport? Analysis of cost competitiveness in global climate mitigation.Environ. Sci. Technol.53, 1690–1697 (2019). ArticleGoogle Scholar Fricko, O. et al. The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: a middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century.Glob. Environ. Change42, 251–267 (2017). ArticleGoogle Scholar Hedenus, F. et al. Cost-effective energy carriers for transport—the role of the energy supply system in a carbon-constrained world.Int. J. Hydrogen Energy35, 4638–4651 (2010). ArticleGoogle Scholar IPCCClimate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change(eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014). Antonini, C. et al. Hydrogen from wood gasification with CCS—a techno-environmental analysis of production and use as transport fuel.Sustainable Energy Fuels5, 2602–2621 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar Sacchi, R. et al. PRospective EnvironMental Impact asSEment (premise): a streamlined approach to producing databases for prospective life cycle assessment using integrated assessment models.Renewable Sustain. Energy Rev.160, 112311 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar Wernet, G. et al. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.21, 1218–1230 (2016). ArticleGoogle Scholar Stehfest, E. et al.Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE 3.0: Model Description and Policy Applications(Netherlands PBL, 2014). Zampori, L. & Rana, P.Suggestions for Updating the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Method, EUR 29682 EN(Publications Office of the European Union, 2019). Pathak, M. et al. inClimate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change(eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) 51–148 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022). Download references The project received funding from the European Commission through APOLO project under grant agreement number 101138466. This work is also supported by funding from Swedish Transport Administration and Nordic Energy Research via ‘STORM project’ with grant number TRV 2024/35280 and through ‘Fuel EU Maritime and other EU and IMO climate policies—impact on the environment and on Scandinavian shipping’ with grant agreement TRV 2022/107506. We also acknowledge the funding from Swedish Energy Agency and Nordic Energy Research through the ‘H2AMN project’ (grant agreement P2023-00560) and Swedish Energy Agency project ‘Pathways towards 50% reduction of GHGs from shipping until 2050’ with grant number 47479-1. Open access funding provided by Chalmers University of Technology. Department of Environmental and Energy Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden Fayas Malik Kanchiralla, Selma Brynolf, Julia Hansson & Maria Grahn Department of Sustainable Society, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Gothenburg, Sweden Julia Hansson Search author on:PubMedGoogle Scholar Search author on:PubMedGoogle Scholar Search author on:PubMedGoogle Scholar Search author on:PubMedGoogle Scholar F.M.K.: writing—original draft, conceptualization, visualization, data curation, methodology, validation, model development, formal analysis and investigation. S.B.: conceptualization, validation and editing. J.H.: conceptualization, validation and editing. M.G.: validation, data curation and editing. Correspondence toFayas Malik Kanchiralla. The authors declare no competing interests. Nature Energythanks Youngrong Kim, Diogo Kramel, Matteo Prussi and Seyedvahid Vakili for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Publisher’s noteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Supplementary Figs. 1–14, Tables 1–15 and description of GET model and datasets. Annexure 1-WTT, Annexure 2-TTW, Annexure 3 -LCA vs GET Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions Kanchiralla, F.M., Brynolf, S., Hansson, J.et al.Marine fuel choices and related life-cycle environmental impacts under global shipping policies.Nat Energy(2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-026-02079-6 Download citation Received:17 June 2025 Accepted:29 April 2026 Published:29 May 2026 Version of record:29 May 2026 DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-026-02079-6 Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

El Ayuntamiento de Barcelona y el Port de Barcelona anunciaron una reducción de siete a cinco terminales de cruceros en el muelle Adossat. El acuerdo, firmado el 17 de julio de 2025, prevé demoler las actuales terminales A, B y C, construir una nueva terminal pública en el espacio de la C y mantener cuatro terminales privadas. La nueva infraestructura pública tendrá capacidad para atender hasta 7.000 pasajeros simultáneos.La operación forma parte de una inversión público-privada de 185 millones de euros. De ese total, el puerto destinará 50 millones a la renovación de un tramo de 610 metros del muelle Adossat, correspondiente a las actuales terminales A y B. El plan también incluye mejoras de movilidad, la duplicación del puente Porta d’Europa, un corredor urbano entre Drassanes y la Marina del Prat Vermell, y sistemas de información para distribuir mejor los flujos de visitantes.El calendario prevé que a fines de 2026 cierre la terminal del muelle Barcelona Sur y se demuela la actual terminal C. En 2027 comenzará la construcción de la nueva terminal pública y se inaugurará la terminal G, actualmente en obras. En 2028 entrará en funcionamiento la nueva C y se demolerán las terminales A y B. Para 2030, la terminal C deberá estar plenamente operativa. Con esta reconfiguración, el Port de Barcelona quedará con cinco terminales: cuatro privadas (D, E, G y H) y una pública, la nueva C. Según la información oficial, el nuevo esquema buscará priorizar los cruceros de puerto base y los barcos de menor tamaño.La decisión responde a una presión turística creciente. El alcaldeJaume Collbonisostuvo que, por primera vez, se pone un límite al crecimiento de los cruceros en la ciudad, y recordó que entre 2018 y 2024 el número de cruceristas aumentó un 20 %.“La gestión actual del turismo implica poner límites y gestionar mejor”,afirmó.La segunda pata de la estrategia es fiscal. Jaume Collboni anunció que quiere acelerar la suba de la tasa turística para los cruceristas que solo hacen escala en Barcelona y no tienen la ciudad como origen o destino del viaje. La propuesta apunta a elevar el recargo de 4 a 8 euros por persona y día en los próximos meses, en lugar de aplicarlo de manera gradual durante cuatro años.“Quiero desincentivar la llegada de cruceristas”,dijo el alcalde.El objetivo político es reducir progresivamente las escalas de tránsito, consideradas de bajo valor para la ciudad porque concentran visitantes durante pocas horas, sin pernoctes y con fuerte presión sobre el espacio público. En cambio, Barcelona busca preservar el turismo de puerto base, que genera noches de hotel, consumo en restaurantes, traslados, servicios pre y post crucero y mayor derrame económico. Para la industria turística, el movimiento puede tener consecuencias directas en los itinerarios del Mediterráneo occidental. Las rutas que combinan Barcelona con Marsella, Génova, Civitavecchia, Palma u otros puertos podrían ajustar escalas a partir de los próximos catálogos, especialmente cuando Barcelona funcione solo como parada de pocas horas y no como puerto de embarque o desembarque.El impacto no será igual para todas las compañías. Las navieras con terminales privadas o acuerdos consolidados parten de una posición más sólida para sostener operaciones de puerto base. Es el caso de las terminales D y E, asociadas a las empresas del grupo Carnival, la H a MSC y la G a Royal Caribbean. Las compañías sin infraestructura dedicada dependerán más de la disponibilidad del futuro terminal público.El plan también incluye la instalación de sistemas OPS, conocidos como cold ironing, para que los barcos puedan conectarse a la red eléctrica mientras están atracados y apagar sus motores auxiliares. El Port de Barcelona enmarca esta transformación dentro de su estrategia de electrificación y participación en iniciativas europeas de suministro eléctrico a buques. La medida se alinea con las exigencias europeas de descarbonización marítima. El reglamento FuelEU Maritime promueve el uso de combustibles renovables y tecnologías de energía limpia en buques, mientras que desde 2030 los principales puertos europeos deberán avanzar en el uso de conexión eléctrica en puerto para barcos de pasajeros y portacontenedores, bajo determinadas condiciones.La reestructuración no implica el retiro de Barcelona del mapa de cruceros. Para agencias, operadores y pasajeros, el mensaje práctico es doble. Las salidas desde Barcelona seguirán siendo atractivas y probablemente más valorizadas, porque encajan con el modelo que la ciudad quiere preservar. En cambio, las escalas breves podrían encarecerse, perder frecuencia o ser reemplazadas por alternativas cercanas como Tarragona o Palma, o por otros puertos consolidados del Mediterráneo como Marsella y Civitavecchia. La operación forma parte de una inversión público-privada de 185 millones de euros. De ese total, el puerto destinará 50 millones a la renovación de un tramo de 610 metros del muelle Adossat, correspondiente a las actuales terminales A y B. El plan también incluye mejoras de movilidad, la duplicación del puente Porta d’Europa, un corredor urbano entre Drassanes y la Marina del Prat Vermell, y sistemas de información para distribuir mejor los flujos de visitantes.El calendario prevé que a fines de 2026 cierre la terminal del muelle Barcelona Sur y se demuela la actual terminal C. En 2027 comenzará la construcción de la nueva terminal pública y se inaugurará la terminal G, actualmente en obras. En 2028 entrará en funcionamiento la nueva C y se demolerán las terminales A y B. Para 2030, la terminal C deberá estar plenamente operativa. Con esta reconfiguración, el Port de Barcelona quedará con cinco terminales: cuatro privadas (D, E, G y H) y una pública, la nueva C. Según la información oficial, el nuevo esquema buscará priorizar los cruceros de puerto base y los barcos de menor tamaño.La decisión responde a una presión turística creciente. El alcaldeJaume Collbonisostuvo que, por primera vez, se pone un límite al crecimiento de los cruceros en la ciudad, y recordó que entre 2018 y 2024 el número de cruceristas aumentó un 20 %.“La gestión actual del turismo implica poner límites y gestionar mejor”,afirmó.La segunda pata de la estrategia es fiscal. Jaume Collboni anunció que quiere acelerar la suba de la tasa turística para los cruceristas que solo hacen escala en Barcelona y no tienen la ciudad como origen o destino del viaje. La propuesta apunta a elevar el recargo de 4 a 8 euros por persona y día en los próximos meses, en lugar de aplicarlo de manera gradual durante cuatro años.“Quiero desincentivar la llegada de cruceristas”,dijo el alcalde.El objetivo político es reducir progresivamente las escalas de tránsito, consideradas de bajo valor para la ciudad porque concentran visitantes durante pocas horas, sin pernoctes y con fuerte presión sobre el espacio público. En cambio, Barcelona busca preservar el turismo de puerto base, que genera noches de hotel, consumo en restaurantes, traslados, servicios pre y post crucero y mayor derrame económico. Para la industria turística, el movimiento puede tener consecuencias directas en los itinerarios del Mediterráneo occidental. Las rutas que combinan Barcelona con Marsella, Génova, Civitavecchia, Palma u otros puertos podrían ajustar escalas a partir de los próximos catálogos, especialmente cuando Barcelona funcione solo como parada de pocas horas y no como puerto de embarque o desembarque.El impacto no será igual para todas las compañías. Las navieras con terminales privadas o acuerdos consolidados parten de una posición más sólida para sostener operaciones de puerto base. Es el caso de las terminales D y E, asociadas a las empresas del grupo Carnival, la H a MSC y la G a Royal Caribbean. Las compañías sin infraestructura dedicada dependerán más de la disponibilidad del futuro terminal público.El plan también incluye la instalación de sistemas OPS, conocidos como cold ironing, para que los barcos puedan conectarse a la red eléctrica mientras están atracados y apagar sus motores auxiliares. El Port de Barcelona enmarca esta transformación dentro de su estrategia de electrificación y participación en iniciativas europeas de suministro eléctrico a buques. La medida se alinea con las exigencias europeas de descarbonización marítima. El reglamento FuelEU Maritime promueve el uso de combustibles renovables y tecnologías de energía limpia en buques, mientras que desde 2030 los principales puertos europeos deberán avanzar en el uso de conexión eléctrica en puerto para barcos de pasajeros y portacontenedores, bajo determinadas condiciones.La reestructuración no implica el retiro de Barcelona del mapa de cruceros. Para agencias, operadores y pasajeros, el mensaje práctico es doble. Las salidas desde Barcelona seguirán siendo atractivas y probablemente más valorizadas, porque encajan con el modelo que la ciudad quiere preservar. En cambio, las escalas breves podrían encarecerse, perder frecuencia o ser reemplazadas por alternativas cercanas como Tarragona o Palma, o por otros puertos consolidados del Mediterráneo como Marsella y Civitavecchia. El calendario prevé que a fines de 2026 cierre la terminal del muelle Barcelona Sur y se demuela la actual terminal C. En 2027 comenzará la construcción de la nueva terminal pública y se inaugurará la terminal G, actualmente en obras. En 2028 entrará en funcionamiento la nueva C y se demolerán las terminales A y B. Para 2030, la terminal C deberá estar plenamente operativa. Con esta reconfiguración, el Port de Barcelona quedará con cinco terminales: cuatro privadas (D, E, G y H) y una pública, la nueva C. Según la información oficial, el nuevo esquema buscará priorizar los cruceros de puerto base y los barcos de menor tamaño.La decisión responde a una presión turística creciente. El alcaldeJaume Collbonisostuvo que, por primera vez, se pone un límite al crecimiento de los cruceros en la ciudad, y recordó que entre 2018 y 2024 el número de cruceristas aumentó un 20 %.“La gestión actual del turismo implica poner límites y gestionar mejor”,afirmó.La segunda pata de la estrategia es fiscal. Jaume Collboni anunció que quiere acelerar la suba de la tasa turística para los cruceristas que solo hacen escala en Barcelona y no tienen la ciudad como origen o destino del viaje. La propuesta apunta a elevar el recargo de 4 a 8 euros por persona y día en los próximos meses, en lugar de aplicarlo de manera gradual durante cuatro años.“Quiero desincentivar la llegada de cruceristas”,dijo el alcalde.El objetivo político es reducir progresivamente las escalas de tránsito, consideradas de bajo valor para la ciudad porque concentran visitantes durante pocas horas, sin pernoctes y con fuerte presión sobre el espacio público. En cambio, Barcelona busca preservar el turismo de puerto base, que genera noches de hotel, consumo en restaurantes, traslados, servicios pre y post crucero y mayor derrame económico. Para la industria turística, el movimiento puede tener consecuencias directas en los itinerarios del Mediterráneo occidental. Las rutas que combinan Barcelona con Marsella, Génova, Civitavecchia, Palma u otros puertos podrían ajustar escalas a partir de los próximos catálogos, especialmente cuando Barcelona funcione solo como parada de pocas horas y no como puerto de embarque o desembarque.El impacto no será igual para todas las compañías. Las navieras con terminales privadas o acuerdos consolidados parten de una posición más sólida para sostener operaciones de puerto base. Es el caso de las terminales D y E, asociadas a las empresas del grupo Carnival, la H a MSC y la G a Royal Caribbean. Las compañías sin infraestructura dedicada dependerán más de la disponibilidad del futuro terminal público.El plan también incluye la instalación de sistemas OPS, conocidos como cold ironing, para que los barcos puedan conectarse a la red eléctrica mientras están atracados y apagar sus motores auxiliares. El Port de Barcelona enmarca esta transformación dentro de su estrategia de electrificación y participación en iniciativas europeas de suministro eléctrico a buques. La medida se alinea con las exigencias europeas de descarbonización marítima. El reglamento FuelEU Maritime promueve el uso de combustibles renovables y tecnologías de energía limpia en buques, mientras que desde 2030 los principales puertos europeos deberán avanzar en el uso de conexión eléctrica en puerto para barcos de pasajeros y portacontenedores, bajo determinadas condiciones.La reestructuración no implica el retiro de Barcelona del mapa de cruceros. Para agencias, operadores y pasajeros, el mensaje práctico es doble. Las salidas desde Barcelona seguirán siendo atractivas y probablemente más valorizadas, porque encajan con el modelo que la ciudad quiere preservar. En cambio, las escalas breves podrían encarecerse, perder frecuencia o ser reemplazadas por alternativas cercanas como Tarragona o Palma, o por otros puertos consolidados del Mediterráneo como Marsella y Civitavecchia. La decisión responde a una presión turística creciente. El alcaldeJaume Collbonisostuvo que, por primera vez, se pone un límite al crecimiento de los cruceros en la ciudad, y recordó que entre 2018 y 2024 el número de cruceristas aumentó un 20 %.“La gestión actual del turismo implica poner límites y gestionar mejor”,afirmó.La segunda pata de la estrategia es fiscal. Jaume Collboni anunció que quiere acelerar la suba de la tasa turística para los cruceristas que solo hacen escala en Barcelona y no tienen la ciudad como origen o destino del viaje. La propuesta apunta a elevar el recargo de 4 a 8 euros por persona y día en los próximos meses, en lugar de aplicarlo de manera gradual durante cuatro años.“Quiero desincentivar la llegada de cruceristas”,dijo el alcalde.El objetivo político es reducir progresivamente las escalas de tránsito, consideradas de bajo valor para la ciudad porque concentran visitantes durante pocas horas, sin pernoctes y con fuerte presión sobre el espacio público. En cambio, Barcelona busca preservar el turismo de puerto base, que genera noches de hotel, consumo en restaurantes, traslados, servicios pre y post crucero y mayor derrame económico. Para la industria turística, el movimiento puede tener consecuencias directas en los itinerarios del Mediterráneo occidental. Las rutas que combinan Barcelona con Marsella, Génova, Civitavecchia, Palma u otros puertos podrían ajustar escalas a partir de los próximos catálogos, especialmente cuando Barcelona funcione solo como parada de pocas horas y no como puerto de embarque o desembarque.El impacto no será igual para todas las compañías. Las navieras con terminales privadas o acuerdos consolidados parten de una posición más sólida para sostener operaciones de puerto base. Es el caso de las terminales D y E, asociadas a las empresas del grupo Carnival, la H a MSC y la G a Royal Caribbean. Las compañías sin infraestructura dedicada dependerán más de la disponibilidad del futuro terminal público.El plan también incluye la instalación de sistemas OPS, conocidos como cold ironing, para que los barcos puedan conectarse a la red eléctrica mientras están atracados y apagar sus motores auxiliares. El Port de Barcelona enmarca esta transformación dentro de su estrategia de electrificación y participación en iniciativas europeas de suministro eléctrico a buques. La medida se alinea con las exigencias europeas de descarbonización marítima. El reglamento FuelEU Maritime promueve el uso de combustibles renovables y tecnologías de energía limpia en buques, mientras que desde 2030 los principales puertos europeos deberán avanzar en el uso de conexión eléctrica en puerto para barcos de pasajeros y portacontenedores, bajo determinadas condiciones.La reestructuración no implica el retiro de Barcelona del mapa de cruceros. Para agencias, operadores y pasajeros, el mensaje práctico es doble. Las salidas desde Barcelona seguirán siendo atractivas y probablemente más valorizadas, porque encajan con el modelo que la ciudad quiere preservar. En cambio, las escalas breves podrían encarecerse, perder frecuencia o ser reemplazadas por alternativas cercanas como Tarragona o Palma, o por otros puertos consolidados del Mediterráneo como Marsella y Civitavecchia. La segunda pata de la estrategia es fiscal. Jaume Collboni anunció que quiere acelerar la suba de la tasa turística para los cruceristas que solo hacen escala en Barcelona y no tienen la ciudad como origen o destino del viaje. La propuesta apunta a elevar el recargo de 4 a 8 euros por persona y día en los próximos meses, en lugar de aplicarlo de manera gradual durante cuatro años.“Quiero desincentivar la llegada de cruceristas”,dijo el alcalde.El objetivo político es reducir progresivamente las escalas de tránsito, consideradas de bajo valor para la ciudad porque concentran visitantes durante pocas horas, sin pernoctes y con fuerte presión sobre el espacio público. En cambio, Barcelona busca preservar el turismo de puerto base, que genera noches de hotel, consumo en restaurantes, traslados, servicios pre y post crucero y mayor derrame económico. Para la industria turística, el movimiento puede tener consecuencias directas en los itinerarios del Mediterráneo occidental. Las rutas que combinan Barcelona con Marsella, Génova, Civitavecchia, Palma u otros puertos podrían ajustar escalas a partir de los próximos catálogos, especialmente cuando Barcelona funcione solo como parada de pocas horas y no como puerto de embarque o desembarque.El impacto no será igual para todas las compañías. Las navieras con terminales privadas o acuerdos consolidados parten de una posición más sólida para sostener operaciones de puerto base. Es el caso de las terminales D y E, asociadas a las empresas del grupo Carnival, la H a MSC y la G a Royal Caribbean. Las compañías sin infraestructura dedicada dependerán más de la disponibilidad del futuro terminal público.El plan también incluye la instalación de sistemas OPS, conocidos como cold ironing, para que los barcos puedan conectarse a la red eléctrica mientras están atracados y apagar sus motores auxiliares. El Port de Barcelona enmarca esta transformación dentro de su estrategia de electrificación y participación en iniciativas europeas de suministro eléctrico a buques. La medida se alinea con las exigencias europeas de descarbonización marítima. El reglamento FuelEU Maritime promueve el uso de combustibles renovables y tecnologías de energía limpia en buques, mientras que desde 2030 los principales puertos europeos deberán avanzar en el uso de conexión eléctrica en puerto para barcos de pasajeros y portacontenedores, bajo determinadas condiciones.La reestructuración no implica el retiro de Barcelona del mapa de cruceros. Para agencias, operadores y pasajeros, el mensaje práctico es doble. Las salidas desde Barcelona seguirán siendo atractivas y probablemente más valorizadas, porque encajan con el modelo que la ciudad quiere preservar. En cambio, las escalas breves podrían encarecerse, perder frecuencia o ser reemplazadas por alternativas cercanas como Tarragona o Palma, o por otros puertos consolidados del Mediterráneo como Marsella y Civitavecchia. El objetivo político es reducir progresivamente las escalas de tránsito, consideradas de bajo valor para la ciudad porque concentran visitantes durante pocas horas, sin pernoctes y con fuerte presión sobre el espacio público. En cambio, Barcelona busca preservar el turismo de puerto base, que genera noches de hotel, consumo en restaurantes, traslados, servicios pre y post crucero y mayor derrame económico. Para la industria turística, el movimiento puede tener consecuencias directas en los itinerarios del Mediterráneo occidental. Las rutas que combinan Barcelona con Marsella, Génova, Civitavecchia, Palma u otros puertos podrían ajustar escalas a partir de los próximos catálogos, especialmente cuando Barcelona funcione solo como parada de pocas horas y no como puerto de embarque o desembarque.El impacto no será igual para todas las compañías. Las navieras con terminales privadas o acuerdos consolidados parten de una posición más sólida para sostener operaciones de puerto base. Es el caso de las terminales D y E, asociadas a las empresas del grupo Carnival, la H a MSC y la G a Royal Caribbean. Las compañías sin infraestructura dedicada dependerán más de la disponibilidad del futuro terminal público.El plan también incluye la instalación de sistemas OPS, conocidos como cold ironing, para que los barcos puedan conectarse a la red eléctrica mientras están atracados y apagar sus motores auxiliares. El Port de Barcelona enmarca esta transformación dentro de su estrategia de electrificación y participación en iniciativas europeas de suministro eléctrico a buques. La medida se alinea con las exigencias europeas de descarbonización marítima. El reglamento FuelEU Maritime promueve el uso de combustibles renovables y tecnologías de energía limpia en buques, mientras que desde 2030 los principales puertos europeos deberán avanzar en el uso de conexión eléctrica en puerto para barcos de pasajeros y portacontenedores, bajo determinadas condiciones.La reestructuración no implica el retiro de Barcelona del mapa de cruceros. Para agencias, operadores y pasajeros, el mensaje práctico es doble. Las salidas desde Barcelona seguirán siendo atractivas y probablemente más valorizadas, porque encajan con el modelo que la ciudad quiere preservar. En cambio, las escalas breves podrían encarecerse, perder frecuencia o ser reemplazadas por alternativas cercanas como Tarragona o Palma, o por otros puertos consolidados del Mediterráneo como Marsella y Civitavecchia. El impacto no será igual para todas las compañías. Las navieras con terminales privadas o acuerdos consolidados parten de una posición más sólida para sostener operaciones de puerto base. Es el caso de las terminales D y E, asociadas a las empresas del grupo Carnival, la H a MSC y la G a Royal Caribbean. Las compañías sin infraestructura dedicada dependerán más de la disponibilidad del futuro terminal público.El plan también incluye la instalación de sistemas OPS, conocidos como cold ironing, para que los barcos puedan conectarse a la red eléctrica mientras están atracados y apagar sus motores auxiliares. El Port de Barcelona enmarca esta transformación dentro de su estrategia de electrificación y participación en iniciativas europeas de suministro eléctrico a buques. La medida se alinea con las exigencias europeas de descarbonización marítima. El reglamento FuelEU Maritime promueve el uso de combustibles renovables y tecnologías de energía limpia en buques, mientras que desde 2030 los principales puertos europeos deberán avanzar en el uso de conexión eléctrica en puerto para barcos de pasajeros y portacontenedores, bajo determinadas condiciones.La reestructuración no implica el retiro de Barcelona del mapa de cruceros. Para agencias, operadores y pasajeros, el mensaje práctico es doble. Las salidas desde Barcelona seguirán siendo atractivas y probablemente más valorizadas, porque encajan con el modelo que la ciudad quiere preservar. En cambio, las escalas breves podrían encarecerse, perder frecuencia o ser reemplazadas por alternativas cercanas como Tarragona o Palma, o por otros puertos consolidados del Mediterráneo como Marsella y Civitavecchia. El plan también incluye la instalación de sistemas OPS, conocidos como cold ironing, para que los barcos puedan conectarse a la red eléctrica mientras están atracados y apagar sus motores auxiliares. El Port de Barcelona enmarca esta transformación dentro de su estrategia de electrificación y participación en iniciativas europeas de suministro eléctrico a buques. La medida se alinea con las exigencias europeas de descarbonización marítima. El reglamento FuelEU Maritime promueve el uso de combustibles renovables y tecnologías de energía limpia en buques, mientras que desde 2030 los principales puertos europeos deberán avanzar en el uso de conexión eléctrica en puerto para barcos de pasajeros y portacontenedores, bajo determinadas condiciones.La reestructuración no implica el retiro de Barcelona del mapa de cruceros. Para agencias, operadores y pasajeros, el mensaje práctico es doble. Las salidas desde Barcelona seguirán siendo atractivas y probablemente más valorizadas, porque encajan con el modelo que la ciudad quiere preservar. En cambio, las escalas breves podrían encarecerse, perder frecuencia o ser reemplazadas por alternativas cercanas como Tarragona o Palma, o por otros puertos consolidados del Mediterráneo como Marsella y Civitavecchia. La reestructuración no implica el retiro de Barcelona del mapa de cruceros. Para agencias, operadores y pasajeros, el mensaje práctico es doble. Las salidas desde Barcelona seguirán siendo atractivas y probablemente más valorizadas, porque encajan con el modelo que la ciudad quiere preservar. En cambio, las escalas breves podrían encarecerse, perder frecuencia o ser reemplazadas por alternativas cercanas como Tarragona o Palma, o por otros puertos consolidados del Mediterráneo como Marsella y Civitavecchia.

Le immagini scattate questa sera mostrano una colonna scura uscire dal fumaiolo di una nave in porto. L’Ecoistituto di Reggio Emilia e Genova e Centro di Diritto Ambientale collegano il caso al tema più ampio dell’inquinamento in area portuale e denunciano valori elevati di biossido di azoto registrati ieri tra via Bari e via Buozzi Una colonna di fumo nero si è alzata questa sera dal fumaiolo di un traghetto nel porto di Genova, visibile anche dalla viabilità urbana nella zona tra varco Passo Nuovo, lungomare Canepa e le direttrici verso Savona. Le immagini, scattate da Walter, mostrano il pennacchio scuro salire dalla nave e disperdersi sopra l’area portuale, in una zona già da tempo al centro delle proteste per la qualità dell’aria e per l’impatto delle emissioni legate al traffico marittimo, stradale e logistico. Il nuovo episodio arriva mentre l’Ecoistituto di Reggio Emilia e Genova e Centro di Diritto Ambientale tornano a denunciare una situazione ritenuta critica per l’inquinamento atmosferico in città. Secondo l’associazione, ieri 27 maggio i genovesi sarebbero stati esposti dalle 9 del mattino alle 23 a condizioni di aria «fortemente insalubre», con valori particolarmente elevati di biossido di azoto nelle centraline vicine all’area portuale e alle grandi direttrici di traffico. Il dato più pesante indicato dagli ambientalisti riguarda via Bari, dove sarebbe stato raggiunto un picco di 110 microgrammi di biossido di azoto per metro cubo d’aria. Sempre secondo Ecoistituto – Centro di Diritto Ambientale, per il secondo giorno consecutivo sarebbe stato superato il nuovo limite giornaliero del biossido di azoto, con 59 microgrammi per metro cubo. Peggio ancora, sostengono all’associazione, sarebbe andata in via Buozzi, dove il valore avrebbe toccato quota 79 microgrammi per metro cubo. La denuncia non si limita ai numeri. L’associaziona collega quei livelli di inquinamento a possibili effetti sulla salute, soprattutto per chi soffre di patologie respiratorie o cardiovascolari. «Se avete accusato difficoltà di respirazione, crisi asmatica e qualche vostro conoscente è andato al pronto soccorso per una crisi cardiaca, non sono fatti dovuti al caso», affermano all’Ecoistituto di Reggio Emilia e Genova – Centro di Diritto Ambientale, chiedendo di non trattare questi episodi come semplici anomalie visive o fastidi passeggeri. Il fumo nero dal fumaiolo del traghetto diventa così l’immagine concreta di una questione più ampia: il rapporto tra porto e città, la compatibilità delle attività marittime con la salute dei residenti, il controllo delle emissioni e la necessità di interventi strutturali. Da anni comitati e associazioni chiedono misure più incisive, a partire dall’elettrificazione delle banchine, dal monitoraggio costante delle emissioni navali e da una riduzione dell’impatto dei mezzi pesanti sulle strade urbane che circondano gli scali. L’episodio di questa sera andrà verificato nelle sue cause tecniche e nelle eventuali responsabilità, ma riaccende una preoccupazione già radicata nei quartieri più esposti. Per chi vive tra porto, Sampierdarena, San Teodoro, via Buozzi, via Bari e lungomare Canepa, la qualità dell’aria non è un tema astratto: è una condizione quotidiana, misurata nel respiro, nelle finestre chiuse, negli odori, nelle polveri e nei picchi registrati dalle centraline. E il fumo nero sopra il porto, ancora una volta, rende visibile ciò che spesso resta invisibile fino a quando non entra nei dati ambientali o nei problemi di salute dei cittadini. Se non volete perdere le notizie seguite il nostro sito GenovaQuotidiana il nostro canale Bluesky, la nostra pagina X e la nostra pagina Facebook (ma tenete conto che Facebook sta cancellando in modo arbitrario molti dei nostri post quindi lì non trovate tutto). E iscrivetevi al canale Whatsapp dove vengono postate solo le notizie principali Mi piace: Mi piace Caricamento in corso…

Search across reports, market insights, and blog stories. A consortium headed byUK-based ELIRE Maritime, together with several technology and engineering collaborators, has wrapped up a feasibility study that confirms the viability of what is being calledone of the first fully grid-independent floating hydrogen power hubsfor port operations. Backed by a £1 million grant from the UK government's Clean Maritime Demonstrator Competition Round 6, the initiative set out to show that berthed vessels can be supplied with power without relying on conventional shore-side electrical systems. Members of the consortium includedRicardo UK, Schneider Electric, Rux Energy UK, Triton Anchor Europe,Offshore Renewable Energy Catapultand the University of Strathclyde. According to ELIRE Maritime, the modular floating unit combines hydrogen storage, fuel cells, batteries and onboard renewable energy generation to provide up to 5 MW of continuous clean electricity directly to ships alongside the quay. Luke Jenkinson, founder and chief executive of ELIRE Maritime, noted that ports face mounting pressure to cut carbon emissions while dealing with major infrastructure limitations. He stated that the Hydrogen Power Hub demonstrates that ports do not have to wait years for grid enhancements to begin lowering emissions. The consortium reported that the platform is capable of supporting medium-sized cruise ships and other large vessels that require 6.6 kV and 11 kV shore power connections. The six-month feasibility effort included hydrodynamic testing, structural analysis, electrical validation and operational modelling. The University of Strathclyde performed wave tank testing, while Schneider Electric verified the grid-forming electrical architecture and battery systems. A preliminary emissions analysis conducted by Ricardo UK estimated that the system could reduce vessel emissions at berth by approximately 77% compared to conventional onboard diesel generators. ELIRE Maritime indicated that it is now pursuing larger-scale projects in the UK, Europe and Australia as ports look for faster routes to decarbonisation without major grid reinforcement work. Making Data-Driven Decisions to Grow Your Business A Quick Overview of Market Performance Understanding the Current State of The Market and its Prospects Finding New Products to Diversify Your Business Choosing the Best Countries to Establish Your Sustainable Supply Chain Choosing the Best Countries to Boost Your Export The Latest Trends and Insights into The Industry The Largest Import Supplying Countries The Largest Destinations for Exports The Largest Producers on The Market and Their Profiles The Largest Markets And Their Profiles Instant access. No credit card needed. Online access to 2M+ reports, dashboards, and tables. Trusted by Fortune 500 teams.

TRIESTE – Il porto di Trieste è pronto ad avviare il cold ironing. I lavori di elettrificazione delle banchine destinate alle navi da crociera sono terminati, e il collaudo tecnico è atteso entro la fine di giugno. Le prime navi potranno allacciarsi alla rete elettrica di terra già a luglio. Ad annunciarlo è Marco Consalvo, presidente dell’Autorità di Sistema Portuale del Mare Adriatico Orientale e di Trieste Terminal Passeggeri. L’unica variabile ancora aperta è un decreto del ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, necessario per stabilire le modalità operative e la titolarità del servizio. Il cold ironing permette alle navi ormeggiate di spegnere i motori ausiliari e alimentarsi dalla rete a terra, abbattendo le emissioni prodotte durante la sosta in porto. Per Trieste, città in cui il terminal passeggeri si trova a poche centinaia di metri dal centro storico, si tratta di una questione che va oltre la logistica portuale. Monitoraggi condotti in città hanno rilevato picchi di particolato fino a dieci volte superiori ai valori di riferimento nelle aree non esposte, concentrazioni di black carbon oltre la stessa soglia e punte di biossido di azoto quattro volte oltre i limiti OMS. Con il cold ironing, la quota di emissioni prodotta durante la sosta in banchina potrà essere eliminata.

May 28, 2026 The Port Infrastructure using Novel Energy Storage (PINS) project has successfully explored solutions to help UK ports and harbors overcome grid limitations and high connection costs, vital for the electrification of vessels. Focusing on pilot sites in Cowes, Portsmouth and Falmouth, the study tackled differing operational needs and infrastructure challenges, ultimately proving that battery energy storage paired with smart energy management makes shore power and vessel charging more feasible, scalable and affordable. Funded by UK Government through the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions (UK SHORE) in the Department for Transport, PINS was coordinated by MSE International with nine partners from across industry and academia, combining expertise in maritime operations, energy storage technologies, and systems engineering. The PINS project team assessed present and future vessel charging requirements, modeled duty cycles and reviewed four battery types: lithium-iron phosphate (LFP), second-life lithium-ion, sodium-ion (NIB) and soluble lead-flow batteries (SLFB). Evaluation criteria included cost, performance, safety and suitability for diverse port environments, revealing that both established and emerging battery technologies can support port electrification. Promisingly, new battery innovations offer considerable supply chain potential within the UK. Advanced modeling demonstrated that battery-supported systems can decrease peak grid demand, enable higher-power charging even with limited grid connections and optimize onsite solar generation. The project examined charging infrastructure options, ranging from CCS-based DC charging for small vessels to high-power shore connection systems for ferries and cruise ships. Solutions such as wireless charging and DC microgrids were also investigated. Findings indicate that integrated energy storage solutions reduce reliance on expensive grid upgrades, boost operational flexibility and help the UK maritime sector transition towards cleaner operations. The next phase hopes to see a real-world demonstration at one of the pilot sites, validating technical performance, operational processes and commercial models to provide robust evidence for wider adoption across UK ports and harbors. The PINS project identified potential for emissions reductions by accelerating the take-up of electrification by vessel operators. In this way, large-scale deployment of battery-enabled shore power could deliver major COz reductions, particularly in harbours where grid constraints currently hinder electrification. Economic benefits include the prospect of job creation in battery integration, electrical contracting, vessel charging infrastructure and port energy system management. The project highlighted opportunities for UK supply chains in sodium-ion and soluble lead-flow batteries, as well as in smart charging and microgrid control technologies. Overall, the PINS project demonstrates that storage-led port electrification is both technically viable and commercially attractive, provided systems are tailored to site-specific constraints. A potential real-world demonstration would aim to validate this approach and accelerate widespread adoption across the UK maritime sector.

The transition to cleaner shipping took a major step forward yesterday as the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commission approved a first–of-its kind $1 million incentive to support commercial scale methanol bunkering at the Port of Long Beach. TheClean Fuel Bunkering Challenge Incentive Awardis designed to help move the maritime sector away from conventional dirty fossil fuels and toward cleaner alternatives capable of reducing harmful air pollution, better protect public health and cut climate emissions that contribute to rising temperatures and extreme weather events. There are already more than 400 dual-fuel methanol vessels currently operating or on order globally and are expected to call at major ports such as Long Beach. However, many of these vessels continue to run on hazardous, health-harming conventional fuels due to the lack of available green methanol fuel infrastructure along the West Coast. “Frontline communities in Los Angeles and Long Beach suffer from some of the worst pollution in the nation,” saidCristhian Tapia-Delgado, Climate Campaigner for Southern California, Pacific Environment. “We applaud the Port of Long Beach for approving $1 million to move ocean shipping lines to clean bunkering, but we urge the Port to do everything possible to ensure the cleanest, safest and most sustainable alternative fuels are the ones that achieve long-term success at the Port.” The Port of Long Beach has long served as a national leader in deploying shore power infrastructure and advancing emissions-reduction technologies, and we must ensure this momentum continues as the next generation of cleaner vessels enters service. Achieving the Port of Long Beach’s goals of phasing out emissions from all seaport-related activities will require a large-scale transition to next-generation maritime fuels capable of achieving low- and near-zero greenhouse gas emissions. “We know there is no single, magic fuel solution today, but methanol is emerging as one of the leading fuel alternatives in the maritime industry, said Davina Hurt,Climate Policy Director for Pacific Environment.“As this transition moves forward, shippers and the port must ensure that robust safety precautions must be in place to protect port workers and surrounding communities. At the same time, we urge shipping companies and the Port of Long Beach to carefully choose the cleanest and safest fuel today, choosing any type of methanol is short-sighted. Not all methanol pathways are equal, and long-term investments should focus on truly green methanol solutions that deliver the strongest climate and public health benefits.” According to the ports’ own emission inventories,shipping remains the largest source of NOx emissionsat the San Pedro Bay ports. The San Pedro Bay port complex — handling roughly 40% of all containerized U.S. cargo — is the largest single source of air pollution in the metropolitan region. Port-adjacent, working-class communities of color (like West Long Beach, Wilmington, and San Pedro) experience significantly elevated rates of asthma and up to eight years lower life expectancy due to disproportionate exposure to diesel pollution. The Port of Long Beach must send a clear signal to the maritime industry that the world’s cleanest fleets are welcomed and supported here — This $1 million dollar investment, if implemented correctly, is the first place to start. “This incentive can help catalyze the next chapter of cleaner shipping and help accelerate the deployment of innovative ships and fuels that will define the maritime industry of the future,” Hurt added. ### Pacific Environment confronts our most urgent environmental issues by connecting local and global movements, catalyzing policy change and inspiring action for the benefit of people and our planet. Together, we promote a healthy climate, reduce pollution and conserve biodiversity for an equitable and thriving future.

GRANADA, 27 (EUROPA PRESS) La consejera en funciones de Sostenibilidad y Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Andalucía, Catalina García, ha asistido este miércoles en Granada a la entrega de los galardones correspondientes a la segunda edición de los Premios Horizonte Sostenible, que organiza la Asociación de Energías Renovables de Andalucía (Claner), un certamen que ha elogiado porque "estimula a empresas, instituciones, entidades y profesionales para innovar en la búsqueda de un modelo energético más limpio, eficiente y justo". Catalina García ha clausurado el acto de entrega de la edición de 2026 de estos premios, que se ha celebrado en el Carmen de los Chapiteles de la capital granadina, reafirmando el respaldo de la Junta a Claner porque "estos Premios Horizonte Sostenible se han consolidado en apenas dos años como una palanca esencial para inspirar e impulsar soluciones e ideas que ayudan a una mejor transición energética y con ello contribuyen al bienestar de los andaluces y a la lucha contra el cambio climático en una región como la nuestra, que es especialmente vulnerable en ese aspecto". En ese sentido, la titular en funciones de Sostenibilidad y Medio Ambiente ha querido poner el valor el esfuerzo del Gobierno andaluz, reflejado en el incremento en los presupuestos que la Consejería va a destinar en 2026 a actuaciones relativas a la economía circular y la gestión de residuos, que ascienden a 163,4 millones de euros, un 18,4% más que en el ejercicio precedente. En cuanto a los galardonados, el Premio 'Luz de Andalucía', que reconoce a proyectos innovadores con avances tecnológicos significativos en la generación, almacenamiento o distribución de energía limpia, ha recaído 'ex aequo' en las empresas Ariema Enerxía y Geotermia Integral. "Son propuestas muy valiosas e interesantes porque demuestran avances disruptivos que aceleran la reducción de emisiones y sitúan a Andalucía como polo industrial limpio", ha dicho la consejera. El Premio 'Energía para todos', también de forma compartida para la compañía EDP por el proyecto 'Green Education', y para la Fundación Energías Sin Fronteras, por el proyecto 'Don Bosco Solar', supone para Catalina García "un claro ejemplo de cómo se debe empoderar a la ciudadanía, fomentar la participación comunitaria y reforzar la educación ambiental", objetivos que también defiende el proyecto 'Conexión a Tierra', de la compañía Endesa, que ha recibido una Mención Especial en este apartado. El tercero de los premios es el denominado 'Verde Andaluz' y se ha adjudicado a la empresa Ignis por el proyecto 'Caparacena 400', con otra Mención Especial en este caso a la Autoridad Portuaria de la Bahía de Cádiz por el proyecto 'On-shore Power Supply'. Ambos "aúnan el compromiso con la sostenibilidad y prácticas innovadoras que favorecen la protección de la biodiversidad, el respeto por el medio ambiente y la responsabilidad social corporativa", ha recalcado. Por último, la Distinción especial Claner 'Impulso Energético', que valora a personas físicas o jurídicas clave en el impulso de las energías renovables en Andalucía, ha sido concedida a la empresa Lorte, propiedad de la familia Loring, "por su larga trayectoria e implicación en el desarrollo del sector renovable andaluz". Catalina García, que ha estado acompañada por el presidente de Claner, Alfonso Vargas; la secretaria general de Medio Ambiente y Cambio Climático, María López Sanchís; el secretario general de Energía, Manuel Larrasa; la tercera teniente de alcalde y concejal de Sostenibilidad del Ayuntamiento de Granada, Ana Isabel Agudo, y el presidente de Texla Renovables, Roland Bettcheider, ha puesto de relieve "la originalidad de todas las propuestas y su capacidad de generar empleo verde y riqueza local, alineándose con la Estrategia Andaluza de Desarrollo Sostenible 2030". De igual modo, ha remarcado que "con el apoyo a estos premios, la Junta refuerza su propósito de promover una Andalucía verde, inclusiva, innovadora y líder en sostenibilidad mediante el desarrollo tecnológico, el impulso de empleo verde y la protección del entorno como elemento clave del futuro de nuestra comunidad". El jurado de estos Premios Horizonte Sostenible 2026, presidido por la consejera en funciones, ha estado compuesto además por referentes del sector: Vicente Cortés (Inerco), que, además ha sido el encargado en el acto de impartir la lección magistral sobre Electricidad renovable, Vito Epíscopo (Ayuntamiento de Granada), Luis Marquina (Aepibal), Fernando Isorna (INTA), Jorge Juan Jiménez (Redeia), María López y Manuel Larrasa (Junta), Miguel Montero (Texla), Rocío Sicre (AEE) y Alfonso Vargas (Claner). UNA ASOCIACIÓN COMPROMETIDA CON UN FUTURO VERDE La Asociación de Energías Renovables de Andalucía (Claner) tiene como finalidad principal la representación y defensa del sector andaluz de las energías renovables y la eficiencia energética. Reúne a cerca de un centenar de miembros, entre centros tecnológicos, universidades, administraciones locales y empresas líderes, que suman más del 90% de la capacidad renovable instalada en la comunidad autónoma. Su visión sostiene que las energías limpias son fundamentales para garantizar la independencia energética, impulsar el desarrollo económico y preservar el medio ambiente en Andalucía y en el conjunto de España, misión que persigue mediante la promoción de la investigación, el desarrollo tecnológico, la innovación y la cooperación entre sus asociados.

Gemadept punta a costruire un porto ecocompatibile e un modello logistico a basse emissioni, implementando sistemi come smartPort, smartGate e riverGate, impianti solari sui tetti e veicoli e attrezzature elettriche. La flotta di chiatte elettriche è solo il primo passo di una strategia di sostenibilità ambientale completa, che aiuterà l'azienda a soddisfare gli standard imposti dalle compagnie di navigazione globali. Secondo la signora Nguyen Thi Thu Thao, responsabile delle pubbliche relazioni e coordinatrice del comitato ESG di Gemadept, l'azienda si sta preparando alla trasformazione verde dal 2023: ha istituito un comitato ESG, misura le emissioni di gas serra secondo gli standard internazionali e si è posta l'obiettivo di applicare i principi ESG in modo sincrono all'intero sistema entro il 2025. Secondo un annuncio del maggio 2025, Gemadept e CMA CGM hanno ufficialmente costituito una joint venture per gestire la prima flotta di chiatte 100% elettriche in Vietnam. Il percorso operativo di 180 km contribuirà a ridurre le emissioni di CO₂ di 778 tonnellate all'anno: una cifra relativamente bassa a livello globale, ma un primo passo strategicamente significativo in Vietnam, dove il trasporto via acqua dipende ancora in larga misura dai combustibili fossili. L'introduzione delle chiatte elettriche non solo crea una nuova modalità di trasporto, ma apre anche la strada all'obiettivo di ridurre le emissioni di CO₂ di circa 778 tonnellate all'anno, avvicinandosi agli standard internazionali per la logistica verde. Questo sviluppo dimostra che il settore portuale vietnamita sta entrando in una fase di competizione basata su "standard verdi", in cui le aziende che non si adegueranno saranno escluse dalla catena di approvvigionamento globale. Se Gemadept è stata una pioniera nel trasporto fluviale pulito, la Saigon Newport Corporation (TCSG) è stata la prima impresa a gettare le basi per il modello di porto verde in Vietnam. Dal 2009 – un periodo in cui il concetto di "porto verde" era ancora sconosciuto – TCSG ha deciso di sostituire tutte le apparecchiature a diesel con apparecchiature elettriche. Questo è stato un passo fondamentale che ha generato profondi cambiamenti: i costi operativi sono diminuiti da 200 miliardi a 66 miliardi di VND all'anno; il rumore e le emissioni sono stati ridotti; l'efficienza operativa è aumentata; e sono state gettate le basi per l'automazione e la gestione intelligente. Ad oggi, TCSG trasporta l'80% delle merci tra Cai Mep - Thi Vai e Ho Chi Minh City via chiatta, riducendo la pressione sul trasporto su strada e tagliando centinaia di migliaia di tonnellate di emissioni all'anno. Il porto internazionale di Tan Cang - Cai Mep viene costruito e gestito secondo un modello portuale "verde". Contemporaneamente, sono stati installati impianti solari sui tetti degli uffici; le attrezzature di sollevamento e i semirimorchi sono passati gradualmente all'alimentazione elettrica; è stata fornita elettricità da terra alle navi; e il sistema di trattamento dei rifiuti è stato ammodernato. I due porti più grandi di Tan Cang, Cat Lai e Cai Mep, sono stati riconosciuti come porti verdi dalla Comunità Portuale dell'Asia-Pacifico (APSN). Illustrando la tabella di marcia per la transizione ecologica, il signor Bui Van Quy, vicedirettore generale di TCSG, ha affermato che l'azienda ha implementato la strategia in modo proattivo fin dalle prime fasi, iniziando con l'elettrificazione delle attrezzature, il passo più fattibile e in grado di produrre risultati immediati. Dalle gru ai carrelli elevatori, fino ai veicoli per le operazioni portuali, tutto viene gradualmente sostituito dal diesel all'elettrico. Allo stesso tempo, il porto di Tan Cang sta installando impianti solari in molti magazzini e uffici per integrare le fonti di energia pulita e ridurre la dipendenza dalla rete elettrica. Tuttavia, secondo il signor Quy, la transizione energetica è solo una parte della "trasformazione verde". Ancora più importante, le imprese devono cambiare anche i loro metodi di trasporto.

USTICA ONE HEALTH 2026 La quarta edizione di “Ustica One Health 2026”, la Summer School in Biologia Marina Applicata, porta sull’isola scienziati, istituzioni e analisti con un obiettivo molto pratico: capire come bloccare il degrado del mare collegando la salute dell’ecosistema a quella dell’uomo. Quest’anno l’iniziativa – promossa dall’Ordine dei Biologi della Sicilia insieme al Biodiversity Gateway dell’Università di Palermo, all’Area Marina Protetta e al Comune di Ustica – registra una svolta pesante: l’ingresso dei vertici che gestiscono i porti della Sicilia occidentale, pronti a ridisegnare le regole del gioco nelle banchine. Il porto non è solo cemento: la nuova linea di Annalisa Tardino Il corridoio logistico e il patrimonio marino non rappresentano più due sfere in conflitto, ma i lati di una stessa medaglia strategica. Lo ha rimarcato con chiarezza Annalisa Tardino, presidente dell’Autorità di Sistema portuale del Mare di Sicilia occidentale, intervenendo nel corso della sessione inaugurale. Secondo la presidente, la sfida moderna dell’ente non si esaurisce nella movimentazione delle merci o nell’accoglienza dei flussi turistici, ma risiede nella capacità di governare una transizione marittima resiliente e integrata con i territori. “L’approccio di One Health ci ricorda proprio questo: non esiste una salute dell’economia separata dalla salute dell’ambiente e delle persone. Esiste un unico equilibrio da costruire e proteggere. Spesso immaginiamo il porto come un luogo esclusivamente legato alla movimentazione delle merci, ai traffici e alle grandi infrastrutture. In realtà, oggi la vera sfida è un’altra: comprendere come la vita di un porto possa convivere con l’attenzione alla sostenibilità.” Dall’elettrificazione delle banchine alla tutela delle comunità La transizione ecologica dei nodi portuali si traduce in interventi strutturali precisi, capaci di superare la vecchia contrapposizione tra profitto e conservazione. Il piano di investimenti tocca l’elettrificazione delle banchine per azzerare le emissioni delle navi in sosta, lo sviluppo di sistemi energetici di nuova generazione e il potenziamento dei sistemi di monitoraggio per la qualità dell’aria e delle acque, oltre all’efficientamento dei collegamenti intermodali. Tardino ha tuttavia evidenziato che la sostenibilità non possiede soltanto una declinazione ecologica, ma richiede una forte matrice sociale ed economica. L’obiettivo finale consiste nel garantire occupazione e generare valore concreto per la collettività locale, mantenendo un dialogo costante con le amministrazioni cittadine e tutelando le risorse biologiche per le generazioni future. Un accordo scientifico per blindare le coste siciliane Dalle intenzioni programmatiche si passa immediatamente ai fatti con la nascita di un asse operativo tra la scienza e la gestione delle infrastrutture marittime. Alessandro Pitruzzella, presidente dell’Ordine dei Biologi di Sicilia, ha annunciato la prossima firma di un protocollo d’intesa con l’Autorità di Sistema portuale della Sicilia occidentale. “Avvieremo un protocollo d’intesa con l’Autorità di Sistema portuale della Sicilia occidentale per rafforzare delle attività di monitoraggio ambientale, contrasto all’inquinamento e salvaguardia del litorale. Un passo concreto che unisce competenze scientifiche e istituzionali nell’ottica One Health.” L’accordo strutturato fisserà nuove procedure per il controllo dei fattori inquinanti e la protezione attiva dei tratti costieri adiacenti alle aree industriali e commerciali. Questo legame tra ricerca sul campo e pianificazione portuale trasforma la Summer School di Ustica da momento di studio accademico a vero e proprio laboratorio normativo e gestionale per il futuro del mare siciliano.

Al convegno promosso da ASSOCOSTIERI il confronto tra istituzioni e operatori su governance, autoconsumo e sostenibilità degli investimenti. “Servono regole chiare e modelli replicabili” La transizione energetica dei porti italiani entra in una nuova fase, nella quale infrastrutture, governance e sostenibilità economica devono procedere insieme. È questo il messaggio emerso dal convegno organizzato a Ravenna da ASSOCOSTIERI insieme all’Autorità di Sistema Portuale del Mare Adriatico Centro Settentrionale nell’ambito del progetto DEPORTIBUS, che ha riunito istituzioni, operatori logistici, consulenti tecnologici e partner industriali attorno a una domanda sempre più centrale per il sistema marittimo nazionale: come rendere realmente sostenibile la decarbonizzazione dei porti. Al centro del confronto il tema del cold ironing, la tecnologia che consente alle navi ormeggiate di spegnere i motori alimentandosi attraverso la rete elettrica di terra. Una soluzione destinata a diventare uno dei pilastri della strategia europea di riduzione delle emissioni nei porti, ma che richiede un profondo ripensamento del modello energetico portuale. “Elettrificare le banchine non significa soltanto installare infrastrutture”, ha spiegato Dario Soria, direttore generale di ASSOCOSTIERI. “L’iniziativa è nata per alimentare il confronto sulle soluzioni tecniche, giuridiche e di governance e sui collegamenti necessari per facilitare l’accesso alle giuste tariffe e alla disponibilità di energia rinnovabile in quantità adeguata per il cold ironing”. Il tema energetico, infatti, non riguarda soltanto la disponibilità di elettricità, ma investe la competitività stessa dei sistemi portuali. Durante i lavori è emerso come la domanda energetica sia destinata ad aumentare rapidamente, rendendo prioritario ridurre l’esposizione ai costi dell’energia attraverso sistemi di accumulo, modelli di autoconsumo e piattaforme di gestione intelligente dei flussi energetici. In questo scenario acquistano un ruolo crescente le integrazioni tra impianti fotovoltaici, comunità energetiche e sistemi di flessibilità, elementi considerati ormai indispensabili per garantire sostenibilità economica e finanziaria agli investimenti necessari per la decarbonizzazione delle infrastrutture portuali. L’evoluzione in corso trasforma progressivamente il porto in un hub energetico multicommodity, nel quale infrastrutture energetiche, digitale e governance devono operare come un ecosistema integrato. Una trasformazione che, secondo gli operatori del settore, richiede modelli replicabili e un quadro regolatorio stabile, destinando alle Autorità di Sistema Portuale un ruolo sempre più strategico nella pianificazione energetica dei territori logistici. Tra i casi più avanzati emersi durante il convegno figura proprio il porto di Ravenna, indicato come uno dei principali laboratori italiani per la sperimentazione di modelli integrati di produzione, accumulo e gestione dell’energia applicati al cold ironing. “Nel porto di Ravenna stiamo portando avanti due importanti progetti finanziati con risorse del PNRR”, ha ricordato Francesco Benevolo, presidente dell’Autorità di Sistema Portuale del Mare Adriatico Centro Settentrionale. “Abbiamo già completato un campo fotovoltaico da 37 giga finanziato dal Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Sicurezza Energetica, mentre con il Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti stiamo realizzando gli impianti di cold ironing al terminal crociere e la relativa rete di collegamento”. Il progetto ravennate rappresenta così uno dei tasselli più avanzati della strategia italiana di elettrificazione dei porti, in una fase in cui la competitività della logistica marittima europea si giocherà sempre più sulla capacità di integrare sostenibilità ambientale, efficienza energetica e innovazione industriale.

May 26, 2026 Credit: Christian Badenfelt Grimaldi has christened its latest ammonia-ready PCTC Grande Svezia at the port of Wallhamn, Sweden. With her name, the Grande Svezia pays tribute to a country that has been regularly served by Grimaldi vessels for more than 30 years. Furthermore, the port of Wallhamn, chosen for the christening ceremony, is Sweden’s only private port and is managed by the Italian shipping group. The port is part of the Grimaldi Group’s EuroMed service, on which the Grande Svezia operates, regularly connecting the main ports of the Mediterranean and Northern Europe, with calls in Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Cyprus, Morocco, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. Built by China Merchants Heavy Industries Jiangsu shipyard, the Grande Svezia is 220 metres long and 38 metres wide, with a gross tonnage of 91,611 and a service speed of 18 knots. Across her 14 decks, she can transport both electric and conventionally powered vehicles, with a maximum capacity of 9,000 CEU. She is one of the ammonia-ready PCTCs in the Grimaldi Group fleet, which currently includes 11 vessels and will be further expanded with the delivery of six additional units by 2027. To achieve zero emissions while in port, the vessel is equipped with mega lithium batteries with a total capacity of 5MWh, as well as cold ironing capability, allowing her to draw electricity directly from shore where facilities are available. Additional sustainability features include 2,500 square metres of solar panels, silicon-based hull coatings to reduce resistance, smart systems for optimizing ventilation and air conditioning, and advanced exhaust gas cleaning systems that significantly reduce SOx, NOx and particulate emissions. An Air Lubrication system, an optimized hull design and an innovative gate rudder further enhance propulsion efficiency and manoeuvrability. Compared with previous generations of car carriers, this vessel enables fuel consumption reductions of up to 50%.

Trasporto Uno dei principali capitoli che compongono l’ampio dossier sulla decarbonizzazione dello shipping, riguarda il tema dell’abbattimento delle emissioni delle navi quando sostano in porto. La soluzione di elettrificare le banchine, il cosiddetto cold ironing, si rivela in molti casi complessa da mettere a terra per via di problemi sia di natura burocratica che infrastrutturale, oltre che di scarsa chiarezza su chi debba gestire il servizio e su come renderlo economicamente sostenibile. Un’alternativa a questo sistema potrebbe arrivare dal Regno Unito, dove la società londinese ELIRE Maritime ha annunciato il completamento del programma CMDC6 (Clean Maritime Demonstrator Competition Round 6). Progetto finanziato con un milione di sterline dall’UK Research and Innovation – ente pubblico britannico istituito per accompagnare sviluppo e ricerca scientifica – e portato avanti in team con Ricardo UK, Schneider Electric, Rux Energy UK, Triton Anchor Europe, OREC (Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult) e l’Università scozzese di Strathclyde, per validare un modello di quella che può essere definita una centrale elettrica galleggiante a idrogeno. La ratio, sostanzialmente, sarebbe questa: invece di aspettare anni per potenziare la rete terrestre e realizzare nuove infrastrutture, l’energia verrebbe prodotta, accumulata e gestita direttamente in mare attraverso una piattaforma galleggiante modulare alimentata ad H 2 . In pratica, il sistema sviluppato combina fuel cell, batterie e stoccaggio di idrogeno all’interno di una struttura galleggiante in grado di fornire elettricità direttamente alle navi in banchina, consentendo loro di spegnere i motori durante la sosta in porto. Secondo quanto comunicato attraverso una nota, il prototipo sviluppato è capace di erogare fino a 5 MW continui di potenza, sufficienti ad alimentare navi da crociera di medie dimensioni e unità di altre tipologie di stazza paragonabile. Dal punto di vista tecnico, l’hub è formato da 3 piattaforme galleggianti modulari a geometria esagonale, per una superficie complessiva di circa 1.200 metri quadrati. A bordo trovano posto batterie per circa 45 MWh di capacità di accumulo, celle a combustibile modulari da 1,3 MW e pannelli fotovoltaici per la produzione di energia rinnovabile. Il principio di funzionamento è quello di una grande batteria galleggiante. Le celle a combustibile alimentate a idrogeno lavorano durante la settimana per caricare progressivamente gli accumulatori di bordo; quando la nave arriva in banchina, l’energia immagazzinata viene erogata rapidamente per alimentarla durante la sosta. Per farlo, la piattaforma consuma circa 7.500-8.000 kg di idrogeno a settimana, conservati in container modulari a bassa pressione, compatibili con gli standard ISO e integrati direttamente nella struttura galleggiante. Archiviati questi aspetti, la stessa società britannica nella nota non nasconde che il tema legato ai costi relativi all’energia prodotta dal prototipo è concreto e, attualmente, non aggirabile. Il differenziale con il diesel (combustibile marino più diffuso) e con il cold ironing sarebbe notevole: 0,25 e 0,50 sterline/kWh, contro gli 0,15-0,25 sterline/kWh. La competitività della soluzione sarebbe, dunque, quella di portare rapidamente elettricità pulita alle navi anche nei porti dove la rete terrestre non ha potenza sufficiente o richiederebbe anni di lavori prima di poter alimentare grandi unità in banchina. “Nei porti non serve soltanto energia a costi più bassi: servono infrastrutture energetiche che possano essere realizzate davvero. Non si tratta di sostituire la rete elettrica, ma di portare energia pulita dove la rete non è in grado di arrivare”, ha sintetizzato Luke Jenkinson, fondatore e CEO di ELIRE Maritime.

Grimaldi Groupchristened its ammonia-ready pure car and truck carrier (PCTC) Grande Svezia at the port of Wallhamn in Sweden. The vessel joined Grimaldi’s next-generation fleet in December 2025. The company designed the ship for future ammonia fuel use. Wallhamn, Sweden’s only private port, hosted the ceremony. Grimaldi operates the port. Grande Svezia serves the Group’s EuroMed network. The service connects major ports across the Mediterranean and Northern Europe. Representatives fromVolvo CarsandVolvo Trucksattended the event. Francesca Gamboni, Chief Industrial Operations Officer at Volvo Cars, served as the vessel’s godmother. China Merchants Heavy Industries Jiangsubuilt the vessel. Grande Svezia is 220 meters long and can carry up to 9,000 CEU across 14 decks. The ship transports both electric and conventional vehicles. Grimaldi equipped the vessel with several green technologies. These include 5 MWh lithium batteries, cold ironing capability and 2,500 square meters of solar panels. The vessel also features exhaust gas cleaning systems, an air lubrication system and an optimized hull design. According to Grimaldi, Grande Svezia cuts fuel consumption by up to 50% compared to previous car carrier generations. The Group currently operates 11 ammonia-ready PCTCs. Six more vessels will join the fleet by 2027.

Presentata ai clienti e partner svedesi una delle nuovissime unità ammonia ready, parte della flotta sempre più green del gruppo dedicata al trasporto di veicoli Napoli – Si è tenuta ieri, presso il porto di Wallhamn (Svezia), la cerimonia di battesimo della nave Grande Svezia. Presa in consegna a dicembre 2025, l’unità ha ampliato la flotta di Pctc (Pure Car & Truck Carrier) ammonia ready del gruppo Grimaldi: navi di ultima generazione predisposte per il futuro utilizzo dell’ammoniaca come carburante alternativo a zero emissioni di carbonio. Con il suo nome, la Grande Svezia rende omaggio ad un Paese servito regolarmente dalle navi Grimaldi da oltre trent’anni. Inoltre, il porto di Wallhamn, scelto per la cerimonia di battesimo, è l’unico porto privato della nazione, ed è gestito proprio dal gruppo armatoriale partenopeo. Lo scalo è parte dello storico servizio EuroMed del Gruppo Grimaldi, sul quale è impiegata la Grande Svezia, che collega regolarmente i principali porti del Mediterraneo e del Nord Europa, con scali in Italia, Spagna, Grecia, Turchia, Egitto, Cipro, Marocco, Portogallo, Regno Unito, Danimarca, Svezia, Belgio, Paesi Bassi e Germania. All’evento hanno partecipato diversi rappresentanti di clienti e partner svedesi di lunga data del gruppo Grimaldi, tra cui importanti produttori di veicoli come Volvo Cars e Volvo Trucks, che hanno potuto visitare le principali aree della nave accompagnati dal Comandante e dall’equipaggio. La cerimonia di battesimo si è aperta con i saluti di Sven-Göran Sjöström, Amministratore Delegato di Grimaldi Maritime Agencies Sweden, e di Costantino Baldissara, Automotive Atlantic Director del Gruppo Grimaldi. Dopo il rito della benedizione della nave, a tagliare il nastro per la tradizionale rottura della bottiglia è stata la madrina della Grande Svezia Francesca Gamboni, chief industrial operations officer di Volvo Cars. Costruita dal cantiere China Merchants Heavy Industries Jiangsu, la Grande Svezia è lunga 220 metri e larga 38 metri, ha una stazza lorda di 91.611 tonnellate ed una velocità di crociera di 18 nodi. Sui suoi 14 ponti può trasportare sia veicoli elettrici che quelli alimentati da combustibili fossili, per una capacità massima di 9.000 ceu (Car Equivalent Units). All’elevata capacità si affiancano le numerose tecnologie green: la Grande Svezia è una delle unità Pctc ammonia ready della flotta del gruppo Grimaldi, che oggi conta ben 11 navi, e sarà ulteriormente ampliata con l’arrivo di altre sei unità entro il 2027. Per azzerare le emissioni durante le soste in porto, la nave è dotata di mega batterie al litio dalla capacità totale di 5 MWh, e di un sistema che le consente di ricevere energia elettrica da terra durante le soste in porto (cold ironing) negli scali dotati dell’infrastruttura necessaria. Tra le ulteriori caratteristiche di sostenibilità figurano 2.500 metri quadrati di pannelli solari, rivestimenti dello scafo a base siliconica per ridurre l’attrito, sistemi smart di controllo della ventilazione e dell’aria condizionata e tecnologie avanzate per il trattamento dei gas di scarico che riducono significativamente le emissioni di SOx, NOx e particolato. Un sistema di Air Lubrication, un design ottimizzato dello scafo e un innovativo timone denominato gate rudder migliorano ulteriormente l’efficienza propulsiva e la manovrabilità. Rispetto alle precedenti generazioni di car carrier, questa nave consente una riduzione del consumo di carburante fino al 50%.

A UK-backed consortium claims to have “validated” a concept for a hydrogen-based charging system for medium-sized cruise ships that can operate without shore-side grid connections. The consortium led by start-up Elire Maritime developed the concept using £1m ($1.3m) ofgovernment funding. The platform would use 1.3MW fuel cell systems to charge onboard batteries via three floating podiums carrying seven hydrogen tanks. Elire said it could remove the need for conventional generators and hydrogen infrastructure upgrades at ports. Completed with an industry and academic consortium including Ricardo, Schneider Electric, and the University of Strathclyde, the system underwent “full operational validation” covering stability, electrical architecture, and hydrogen-to-power systems. While it has only been verified as compatible with 6.6kV and 11kV vessels, the firm said it can reduce vessel emissions at berth by 77% and achieve energy costs comparable to conventional shore power. Elire also said it is in talks to potentially deploy systems on three continents. When docked, ships typically run onboard diesel generators to power systems, which can account for up to 70% of port-side emissions. Hydrogen systems have been used to provide port-side power in demonstration projects. However, broader deployments have not emerged. Luke Jenkinson, CEO of Elire, said the platform proves that ports “do not need to wait years for grid upgrades to begin reducing emissions.” The company has not indicated system pricing or its hydrogen sourcing strategy. Gain access to the insights, data, and analysis trusted by hydrogen professionals worldwide. With a H2 View subscription, you get: Subscribe today

Si è tenuta nel porto di Wallhamn (Svezia) la cerimonia di battesimo della nave Grande Svezia. Presa in consegna a dicembre 2025, l’unità ha ampliato la flotta di Pctc (Pure Car & Truck Carrier) ammonia ready del Gruppo Grimaldi: navi di ultima generazione predisposte per il futuro utilizzo dell’ammoniaca come carburante alternativo a zero emissioni di carbonio. Il porto di Wallhamn è l’unico porto privato della nazione, ed è gestito proprio dal gruppo armatoriale partenopeo. Lo scalo è parte dello storico servizio EuroMed del Gruppo Grimaldi, sul quale è impiegata la Grande Svezia, che collega regolarmente i principali porti del Mediterraneo e del Nord Europa, con scali in Italia, Spagna, Grecia, Turchia, Egitto, Cipro, Marocco, Portogallo, Regno Unito, Danimarca, Svezia, Belgio, Paesi Bassi e Germania. All’evento hanno partecipato diversi rappresentanti di clienti e partner svedesi di lunga data del Gruppo Grimaldi, tra cui importanti produttori di veicoli come Volvo Cars e Volvo Trucks, che hanno potuto visitare le principali aree della nave accompagnati dal Comandante e dall’equipaggio. La cerimonia di battesimo si è aperta con i saluti di Sven-Göran Sjöström, Amministratore Delegato di Grimaldi Maritime Agencies Sweden, e di Costantino Baldissara, Automotive Atlantic Director del Gruppo Grimaldi. Dopo il rito della benedizione della nave, a tagliare il nastro per la tradizionale rottura della bottiglia è stata la madrina della Grande Svezia Francesca Gamboni, Chief Industrial Operations Officer di Volvo Cars. Costruita dal cantiere China Merchants Heavy Industries Jiangsu, la Grande Svezia è lunga 220 metri e larga 38 metri, ha una stazza lorda di 91.611 tonnellate ed una velocità di crociera di 18 nodi. Sui suoi 14 ponti può trasportare sia veicoli elettrici che quelli alimentati da combustibili fossili, per una capacità massima di 9.000 Ceu. All’elevata capacità si affiancano le numerose tecnologie green: la Grande Svezia è una delle unità Pctc ammonia ready della flotta del Gruppo Grimaldi, che oggi conta ben 11 navi, e sarà ulteriormente ampliata con l’arrivo di altre sei unità entro il 2027. Per azzerare le emissioni durante le soste in porto, la nave è dotata di mega batterie al litio dalla capacità totale di 5 MWh, e di un sistema che le consente di ricevere energia elettrica da terra durante le soste in porto (cold ironing) negli scali dotati dell’infrastruttura necessaria. ISCRIVITI ALLA NEWSLETTER QUOTIDIANA GRATUITA DI SHIPPING ITALY SHIPPING ITALY E’ ANCHE SU WHATSAPP: BASTA CLICCARE QUI PER ISCRIVERSI AL CANALE ED ESSERE SEMPRE AGGIORNATI

NAPOLI – Si è svolta ieri nel porto di Wallhamn, in Svezia, la cerimonia di battesimo della Grande Svezia, nuova unità del Gruppo Grimaldi entrata in flotta lo scorso dicembre 2025. La nave va ad ampliare il parco PCTC (Pure Car & Truck Carrier) ammonia ready del gruppo armatoriale partenopeo, composto da unità di ultima generazione predisposte per il futuro utilizzo dell’ammoniaca come carburante alternativo a zero emissioni di carbonio. Il nome scelto per la nave rappresenta un omaggio alla Svezia, Paese collegato regolarmente dai servizi Grimaldi da oltre trent’anni. Anche la scelta di Wallhamn come sede della cerimonia assume un significato particolare: lo scalo, infatti, è l’unico porto privato svedese ed è gestito dal Gruppo Grimaldi. Il porto rientra inoltre nel network dello storico servizio EuroMed, sul quale opera la Grande Svezia, che collega i principali porti del Mediterraneo e del Nord Europa con scali in Italia, Spagna, Grecia, Turchia, Egitto, Cipro, Marocco, Portogallo, Regno Unito, Danimarca, Svezia, Belgio, Paesi Bassi e Germania. Alla cerimonia hanno preso parte rappresentanti di clienti e partner storici del Gruppo Grimaldi in Svezia, tra cui importanti case automobilistiche come Volvo Cars e Volvo Trucks. Gli ospiti hanno avuto l’opportunità di visitare le principali aree della nave accompagnati dal comandante e dall’equipaggio. L’evento si è aperto con gli interventi di Sven-Göran Sjöström, amministratore delegato di Grimaldi Maritime Agencies Sweden, e di Costantino Baldissara, Automotive Atlantic Director del Gruppo Grimaldi. Dopo la benedizione della nave, la tradizionale rottura della bottiglia è stata affidata alla madrina: Francesca Gamboni, Chief Industrial Operations Officer di Volvo Cars. Realizzata dal cantiere China Merchants Heavy Industries Jiangsu, la nave misura 220 metri di lunghezza e 38 metri di larghezza, con una stazza lorda di 91.611 tonnellate e una velocità di crociera di 18 nodi. I suoi 14 ponti consentono il trasporto sia di veicoli elettrici sia di mezzi alimentati da carburanti tradizionali, per una capacità complessiva di 9.000 CEU (Car Equivalent Units). La Grande Svezia si distingue anche per le sue avanzate soluzioni ambientali. L’unità fa parte della flotta PCTC ammonia ready del Gruppo Grimaldi, che attualmente conta undici navi e sarà ulteriormente ampliata con l’arrivo di altre sei unità entro il 2027. Per ridurre le emissioni durante la permanenza in porto, la nave è equipaggiata con mega batterie al litio da 5 MWh complessivi e con un sistema di cold ironing che consente di ricevere energia elettrica da terra negli scali attrezzati. Tra le tecnologie adottate figurano inoltre 2.500 metri quadrati di pannelli solari, rivestimenti siliconici dello scafo per limitare l’attrito, sistemi intelligenti per la gestione della ventilazione e dell’aria condizionata e avanzati impianti di trattamento dei gas di scarico in grado di ridurre sensibilmente le emissioni di SOx, NOx e particolato. La nave dispone anche di un sistema di Air Lubrication, di uno scafo ottimizzato dal punto di vista idrodinamico e di un innovativo timone gate rudder, soluzioni che contribuiscono a migliorare efficienza propulsiva e manovrabilità. Grazie a queste tecnologie, la Grande Svezia consente una riduzione del consumo di carburante fino al 50% rispetto alle precedenti generazioni di car carrier.

26 maggio 2026 – ore 15:30 – Conclusa a Trieste l’elettrificazione delle banchine destinate alle navi da crociera. Il collaudo tecnico delle opere sarà effettuato entro giugno, mentre i primi allacciamenti delle imbarcazioni alla rete elettrica potrebbero avvenire già a luglio. «Faremo il collaudo entro giugno. Adesso stiamo aspettando un decreto del Mit per definire le modalità operative e identificare chi si occuperà di questa operazione. Intanto noi abbiamo completato tutto», ha dichiarato Marco Consalvo, presidente dell’Autorità di Sistema Portuale del Mare Adriatico Orientale e presidente di Trieste Terminal Passeggeri. L’intervento riguarda le banchine lungo le Rive di Trieste, nel centro cittadino, dove attraccano le numerose navi da crociera in sosta nel capoluogo giuliano. L’elettrificazione consentirà alle imbarcazioni di spegnere i motori durante la permanenza in porto, riducendo emissioni e impatto ambientale. Quanto ai tempi di avvio del servizio, Consalvo ha auspicato che «le prime navi possano allacciarsi alla rete già dal prossimo mese di luglio». Articolo di Francesco Viviani

Al Taranto Eco Forum il focus sulla decarbonizzazione dei terminal portuali. Walter Cardaci: servono modelli operativi, semplificazione e reti energetiche integrate per sostenere competitività e sostenibilità La transizione energetica dei porti passa dalla capacità di trasformare gli obiettivi ambientali in infrastrutture operative e sostenibili sul piano industriale. È il messaggio portato da Assiterminal al TEF – Taranto Eco Forum 2026, dove il 21 maggio Walter Cardaci, presidente della Commissione Energy dell’associazione, è intervenuto sul tema della decarbonizzazione dei terminal portuali, con un focus sul cold ironing e sul suo impatto economico e sociale. Nel corso dell’incontro, Cardaci ha evidenziato come il cold ironing rappresenti, almeno sul piano teorico, uno degli strumenti più concreti della transizione green del trasporto marittimo. La tecnologia consente infatti alle navi ormeggiate in porto di collegarsi alla rete elettrica di terra, spegnendo i motori ausiliari e riducendo così emissioni atmosferiche, rumore e impatti ambientali nelle aree portuali e urbane. Secondo Assiterminal, tuttavia, la sfida si gioca ora sulla capacità di rendere questi progetti realmente operativi. «È necessario un approccio pragmatico», ha sottolineato Cardaci, evidenziando come modelli operativi, linee guida e strumenti di sostegno alla competitività debbano tradursi rapidamente in realizzazioni effettive. Il tema riguarda non soltanto la sostenibilità ambientale, ma anche il posizionamento competitivo della portualità italiana nel nuovo scenario energetico europeo. L’efficienza dei sistemi portuali — è stato sottolineato durante il forum — si misura sempre più sulla qualità della connessione tra mare e terra, sulla capacità di semplificare i processi autorizzativi e operativi e sulla disponibilità di combustibili alternativi competitivi e facilmente reperibili. Nel ragionamento sviluppato da Assiterminal, la transizione energetica dei porti richiede inoltre una crescente capacità degli operatori di fare rete, condividendo produzione e utilizzo dell’energia a supporto non solo delle attività terminalistiche, ma anche delle port communities e dei territori circostanti. Il confronto sviluppato al Taranto Eco Forum si inserisce in una fase di forte accelerazione delle politiche europee sulla decarbonizzazione del trasporto marittimo e sulla sostenibilità delle infrastrutture logistiche. In questo contesto, il cold ironing viene considerato uno degli investimenti chiave per ridurre l’impatto ambientale delle attività portuali, soprattutto nei grandi scali prossimi ai centri urbani. Resta però aperta la questione della sostenibilità economica degli investimenti e della necessità di accompagnare il processo con strumenti regolatori e finanziari capaci di evitare effetti penalizzanti sulla competitività dei terminal italiani rispetto agli altri porti del Mediterraneo.