Life-Cycle Assessment of an Ammonia-Fueled SOFC Container Ship: Identifying Key Impact Drivers and Environmental Advantages over Diesel-Powered Vessels
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Methodology and Calculations
2.1. System Framework and Boundaries
2.2. Method and Models
2.3. Data Collection and Sampling
- Data list for the construction phase of ammonia fuel SOFC power ships
- 2.
- Data list for the operation phase of ammonia fuel SOFC-powered ships
- 3.
- Data list for the decommissioning phase of ammonia fuel SOFC power ships
- 4.
- ICEs and SOFCs benchmark data
2.4. Assumptions, Limitations and Validation
- (1)
- Data availability and estimations: due to the nascent nature of ammonia-fueled SOFC systems in marine applications, empirical data on full-scale, operational ammonia-powered ships are limited. Consequently, certain parameters, such as emissions, fuel consumption, and energy efficiency, were estimated based on scaled data from prototype systems, laboratory studies, and analogous technologies. While every effort was made to align these estimates with realistic values, the absence of extensive operational data introduces some uncertainty, particularly regarding long-term performance and wear factors.
- (2)
- Technological assumptions: the model assumes that current ammonia-fueled SOFC technology remains constant throughout the ship’s lifecycle. This includes assumptions of a 65% SOFC efficiency rate and a 95% ammonia fuel utilization rate. However, technological advances in fuel cells, material durability, and fuel handling are likely to emerge, potentially altering the environmental impact profile of ammonia-fueled ships in future applications. This limitation implies that the results may need updating as newer, more efficient technologies become available.
- (3)
- Geographic and operational scope: This analysis uses a 200 TEU container ship operating on the Yangtze River as a reference, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other vessel classes or operational regions. Operating conditions, environmental regulations, and fuel availability vary across geographic locations, potentially affecting the applicability of our results to vessels in different areas or under varying regulatory environments.
- (4)
- Lifecycle phase assumptions: This study divides the ship’s lifecycle into three primary stages—construction, operation, and decommissioning—assuming a total service life of 25 years. The ship is modeled to operate for approximately 300 days per year, with a daily ammonia consumption rate estimated at 7.2 tons during sailing and 1.1 tons while docked. These assumptions provide a conservative estimate for the operational phase but may differ for ships with varying service durations or utilization patterns.
- (5)
- The lifespan of SOFC stacks was conservatively assumed to be 30,000 operational hours, consistent with current commercial data and literature benchmarks. Given a typical ship operational profile of 300 days per year with 18 h of daily operation, the SOFC system would require approximately three stack replacements over the ship’s 30-year lifespan. Efficiency degradation was accounted for at rates ranging from 0.25% to 1% per 1000 operational hours, reflecting variations due to material performance and operational conditions. These assumptions were integrated into the LCA framework, with the environmental impacts of stack replacements—including manufacturing, transportation, and installation—factored into the analysis. These considerations provide a realistic foundation for evaluating the lifecycle environmental performance of SOFC-powered ships.
- (1)
- Benchmarking against existing studies: the environmental impact results of the model, encompassing emissions, energy consumption, and resource depletion, are compared with similar LCA studies focusing on ammonia-fueled marine power systems. Key studies, notably those conducted by Fu et al. [12] and Alaedini et al. [14], provided comparative data, particularly for CO2 emissions and fuel efficiency metrics. For instance, the model estimated an annual CO2 reduction of approximately 51% when compared to diesel-fueled systems, which closely correlated with the findings reported by Alaedini et al. [14], who noted a reduction range of 48–53% for ammonia-fueled systems. Similarly, the model demonstrated a reduction in resource depletion by around 40% compared to traditional systems, aligning with benchmark values obtained from comparable LCA analyses.
- (2)
- Cross-validation with empirical data: where possible, empirical data from operational ammonia-fueled SOFC systems and prototype marine applications were integrated. Data from pilot projects revealed ammonia consumption rates for similar vessel classes to be approximately 7–8 tons per day, which was in close agreement with the model’s estimated consumption of 7.2 tons per day during operation. Additionally, SOFC efficiency parameters were cross-validated, with the model adopting a baseline efficiency of 65%, which was consistent with real-world SOFC systems deployed in marine and stationary applications.
- (3)
- Parameter sensitivity analysis: to evaluate the robustness of the model, sensitivity analyses are conducted on key parameters, including SOFC efficiency (tested within a range of 60–70%) and ammonia utilization rate (tested at 90–98%). Variations in these parameters resulted in modest fluctuations in emissions and energy consumption, confirming the stability of the model’s general trend. Specifically, the SOFC stack lifespan was varied between 20,000 h and 40,000 h, reflecting the range reported in the literature. Additionally, efficiency degradation rates were modeled at 0.25%, 0.5%, and 1% per 1000 operational hours to account for different operational conditions and maintenance practices. These scenarios allow for an evaluation of the potential impact of technological advancements or operational inefficiencies on lifecycle performance.
- (4)
- Database consistency: the analysis relied on the ReCiPe 2016 impact factors and emissions data from GaBi software, both of which are regularly updated to reflect the latest industry standards. By cross-referencing the impact data with the latest GaBi database values, consistency was ensured, and data-related discrepancies in estimating greenhouse gas emissions, resource depletion, and toxicological effects were minimized.
- (5)
- Through these comprehensive validation steps, the LCA model demonstrated reliable alignment with both existing literature and empirical data, thereby ensuring that the lifecycle impact estimates for ammonia-fueled SOFC ships are scientifically robust and reflective of real-world performance.
3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Comparison
3.1. Impact Assessment Analysis of Ammonia Fuel SOFC-Powered Ships
3.2. The Impact of Different Substance Inputs on the Environment
3.3. Parameter Sensitivity Analysis Results
3.4. Comparative Evaluation of Ships with Different Power Systems
4. Conclusions
- (1)
- Based on the traditional diesel-powered 200 TEU Yangtze River container ship as the benchmark, with the power unit replaced by ammonia-fueled SOFC, the ship’s life cycle was divided into three phases: shipbuilding, operation, and dismantling/recycling. The life cycle assessment method was used to track the energy consumption, material consumption, and potential environmental impacts during these three stages for the functional unit.
- (2)
- Using GaBi software for analysis and modeling calculations, 19 categories of environmental impact characterization results were obtained. It was found that the construction and operation phases of ammonia-fueled SOFC-powered ships are the main sources of environmental load throughout the life cycle, while the impact of the dismantling phase is relatively minor. Normalization analysis yielded comprehensive evaluation indicators, showing that resource depletion has the most significant impact, followed by human health impacts, with ecosystem impacts ranking third in the normalized results.
- (3)
- The specific environmental impacts of different material inputs were analyzed in detail across the three core stages of construction, operation, and Decommissioning. The life cycle impact analysis results of the material inputs in each stage of ammonia-fueled ships indicate that the environmental load during the construction phase is mainly due to the use of steel and electricity. During the operation phase, the use and related emissions of ammonia fuel have a particularly significant environmental impact. In the dismantling/recycling phase, the environmental impacts of electricity and industrial gases are comparable.
- (4)
- A comparative evaluation of different power systems was conducted, revealing that the environmental impacts of different power systems are mainly concentrated during the operational phase of the ship. The emissions of traditional diesel-powered ships far exceed those of ammonia-fueled powered ships in most emission parameters, further confirming the superior environmental and social benefits of ammonia-fueled SOFC power as a viable future alternative.
- (5)
- To reduce the environmental impacts during the construction phase, strategies such as optimized material selection, the use of recycled materials, and the adoption of energy-efficient manufacturing technologies are essential. Green shipyard practices, including the integration of renewable energy sources, can further lower emissions. For the operation phase, transitioning to green ammonia, enhancing SOFC fuel efficiency, and integrating waste heat recovery systems offer significant potential for mitigating environmental loads. Advanced energy management systems can further optimize fuel use and power distribution. These strategies provide a pathway for improving the environmental performance of ammonia-fueled SOFC-powered ships, contributing to the broader goals of sustainable maritime transport.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wang, Z.; Liao, P.; Long, F.; Wang, Z.; Han, F.; Ji, Y. Maritime electrification pathways for sustainable shipping: Technological advances, environmental drivers, challenges, and prospects. eTransportation 2025, 26, 100462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, M.; Wang, Z.; Tang, H.; Li, S.; Han, F.; Ji, Y. Electric-Thermal-Gas Synergistic Dynamics in PEMFC-LIB Hybrid Systems for Hydrogen Ships: A Multi-Scale Evaluation Framework. eTransportation 2025, 25, 100430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Tang, H.; Wu, Z.; Ji, Y.; Han, F. Evaluating fuel cell power systems for coastal and inland waterway vessels: Technical and economic perspectives. Energy Convers. Manag. 2025, 323, 119200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Z.; Radchenko, R.; Radchenko, M.; Radchenko, A.; Kornienko, V. Cooling potential of ship engine intake air cooling and its realization on the route line. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, H.; Wang, Z.; Li, J.; Li, S.; Ji, Y.; Han, F. Cross-scale modeling and 6E analysis of a cold storage Rankine-Carnot battery and PEMFC coupled system for liquid hydrogen maritime transportation. Energy 2025, 319, 134987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radchenko, A.; Mikielewicz, D.; Forduy, S.; Radchenko, M.; Zubarev, A. Monitoring the fuel efficiency of gas engine in integrated energy system. In Integrated Computer Technologies in Mechanical Engineering: Synergetic Engineering; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 361–370. [Google Scholar]
- Radchenko, A.; Radchenko, M.; Konovalov, A.; Zubarev, A.; Kujawa, T.; Stachel, A.; Zapałowicz, Z. Increasing electrical power output and fuel efficiency of gas engines in integrated energy system by absorption chiller scavenge air cooling on the base of monitoring data treatment. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference Heat Transfer and Renewable Sources of Energy (HTRSE-2018), Międzyzdroje, Poland, 2–5 September 2018; E3S Web of Conferences. EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2018; Volume 70, p. 03011. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Z.; Liao, P.; Liu, S.; Ji, Y.; Han, F. Scenario-based energy management optimization of hydrogen-electric-thermal systems in sustainable shipping. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2025, 99, 566–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, A.; Pramanik, S. A review of the hydrogen fuel path to emission reduction in the surface transport industry. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 49, 792–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ternel, C.; Bouter, A.; Melgar, J. Life cycle assessment of mid-range passenger cars powered by liquid and gaseous biofuels: Comparison with greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles and forecast to 2030. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 97, 102897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saray, J.A.; Gharehghani, A.; Hosseinzadeh, D. Towards sustainable energy Carriers: A solar and Wind-Based systems for green liquid hydrogen and ammonia production. Energy Convers. Manag. 2024, 30, 118215. [Google Scholar]
- Fu, Z.; Lu, L.; Zhang, C.; Xu, Q.; Zhang, X.; Gao, Z.; Li, J. Fuel cell and hydrogen in maritime application: A review on aspects of technology, cost and regulations. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2023, 57, 103181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Dong, B.; Yin, J.; Li, M.; Ji, Y.; Han, F. Towards a marine green power system architecture: Integrating hydrogen and ammonia as zero-carbon fuels for sustainable shipping. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 50, 1069–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alaedini, A.H.; Tourani, H.K.; Saidi, M. A review of waste-to-hydrogen conversion technologies for solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) applications: Aspect of gasification process and catalyst development. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 329, 117077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Liao, P.; Long, F.; Wang, Z.; Han, F. Coordinated optimization of multi-energy systems in sustainable ships: Synergizing power-to-gas, carbon capture, hydrogen blending, and carbon trading mechanisms. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2025, 165, 150755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindstad, E.; Ask, T.Ø.; Cariou, P.; Eskeland, G.S.; Rialland, A. Wise use of renewable energy in transport. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2023, 119, 103713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godet, A.; Nurup, J.N.; Saber, J.T.; Panagakos, G.; Barfod, M.B. Operational cycles for maritime transportation: A benchmarking tool for ship energy efficiency. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2023, 121, 103840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zare, A.A.D.; Yari, M.; Nami, H.; Mohammadkhani, F. Low-carbon hydrogen, power and heat production based on steam methane reforming and chemical looping combustion. Energy Convers. Manag. 2023, 279, 116752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Ma, Z.; Zhao, J.; Zhou, J.; Peng, S.; Li, Y.; Wang, B. Research progress in green synthesis of ammonia as hydrogen-storage carrier under ‘hydrogen 2.0 economy’. Clean Energy 2023, 7, 116–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Chen, H.; Xia, R.; Han, F.; Ji, Y.; Cai, W. Energy, exergy and economy (3E) investigation of a SOFC-GT-ORC waste heat recovery system for green power ships. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2022, 32, 101342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Y.; Wu, X.; Ding, X. Environmental impacts of textiles in the use stage: A systematic review. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 36, 233–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Lan, Q.; Zhang, D.; Li, M.; Cui, D.; Han, F. Optimizing ammonia-fueled planar SOFCs for low-temperature operation: Multiphysics simulation and performance sensitivity analysis. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2024, 242, 122442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guven, D.; Kayalica, M.O. Life-cycle assessment and life-cycle cost assessment of lithium-ion batteries for passenger ferry. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2023, 115, 103586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chong, D.; Wang, N.; Su, S.; Li, L. Global warming impact assessment of asphalt pavement by integrating temporal aspects: A dynamic life cycle assessment perspective. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2023, 117, 103663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, D.T.; Schönborn, A.; Christodoulou, A.; Ölcer, A.I.; González-Celis, J. Life cycle assessment of ammonia/hydrogen-driven marine propulsion. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part M J. Eng. Marit. Environ. 2023, 238, 531–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ha, S.; Jeong, B.; Jang, H.; Park, C.; Ku, B. A framework for determining the life cycle GHG emissions of fossil marine fuels in countries reliant on imported energy through maritime transportation: A case study of South Korea. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 897, 165366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kanchiralla, F.M.; Brynolf, S.; Olsson, T.; Ellis, J.; Hansson, J.; Grahn, M. How do variations in ship operation impact the techno-economic feasibility and environmental performance of fossil-free fuels? A life cycle study. Appl. Energy 2023, 350, 121773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guven, D.; Kayalica, M.O. Environmental and economic assessment of hydrogen-powered ferries for inland transportation. Ocean Eng. 2024, 301, 117556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez, P.J.B.; Márquez, F.P.G.; Papaelias, M.; Lee, D. Life cycle cost analysis of an autonomous underwater vehicle that employs hydrogen fuel cell. Ocean Eng. 2024, 299, 117300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, P.K.; Bhat, M.Y.; Sajith, S. Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles: A systematic review of literature. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Keiser, D.; Schnoor, L.H.; Pupkes, B.; Freitag, M. Life cycle assessment in aviation: A systematic literature review of applications, methodological approaches and challenges. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2023, 110, 102418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farzaneh, F.; Jung, S. Lifecycle carbon footprint comparison between internal combustion engine versus electric transit vehicle: A case study in the US. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 390, 136111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romano, A.; Yang, Z. Decarbonisation of shipping: A state of the art survey for 2000–2020. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2021, 214, 105936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aliabadi, D.E.; Chan, K.; Wulff, N.; Meisel, K.; Jordan, M.; Österle, I.; Pregger, T.; Thrän, D. Future renewable energy targets in the EU: Impacts on the German transport. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2023, 124, 103963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, M.; Wang, Y.; Fan, A.; Yang, J.; Fan, X. Comprehensive analysis and evaluation of ship energy efficiency practices. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2023, 231, 106397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dirkes, S.; Leidig, J.; Fisch, P.; Pischinger, S. Prescriptive Lifetime Management for PEM fuel cell systems in transportation applications, Part I: State of the art and conceptual design. Energy Convers. Manag. 2023, 277, 116598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.C.; Yang, H.L. Economic feasibility of LNG-fuelled river ships: Carbon tax schemes perspective. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2024, 132, 104235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Zhao, N.; Li, M.; Xu, Z.; Wu, D.; Hillmansen, S.; Blacktop, K.; Roberts, C. A techno-economic analysis of ammonia-fuelled powertrain systems for rail freight. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2023, 119, 103739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, L.; Tang, S.; Wang, G.; Yu, T.; Yuan, J. The evaluation of government subsidy policies on carbon emissions in the port collection and distribution network: A case study of Guangzhou Port. Front. Mar. Sci. 2023, 10, 1213701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moraes Marques Benvenutti, L.; Maria de Souza Campos, L.; Vazquez-Brust, D.; Liston-Heyes, C. Electric versus ethanol? A fleet-based well-to-wheel system dynamic model for passenger vehicles. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2023, 115, 103604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Correa, L.; Razi, F.; Sadiq, R.; Hewage, K. Life cycle costing analysis of a retrofitted hydrogen-powered locomotive: Canadian context. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2024, 133, 104295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dekker, E.; Zijp, M.C.; van de Kamp, M.E.; Temme, E.H.; van Zelm, R. A taste of the new ReCiPe for life cycle assessment: Consequences of the updated impact assessment method on food product LCAs. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 2315–2324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rashedi, A.; Khanam, T. Life cycle assessment of most widely adopted solar photovoltaic energy technologies by mid-point and end-point indicators of ReCiPe method. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 29075–29090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Turk, J.; Oven, P.; Poljanšek, I.; Lešek, A.; Knez, F.; Rebec, K.M. Evaluation of an environmental profile comparison for nanocellulose production and supply chain by applying different life cycle assessment methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prado, V.; Cinelli, M.; Ter Haar, S.F.; Ravikumar, D.; Heijungs, R.; Guinée, J.; Seager, T.P. Sensitivity to weighting in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 2393–2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, P.; Athanassiadis, D.; Antonopoulou, I.; Rova, U.; Christakopoulos, P.; Tysklind, M.; Matsakas, L. Environmental impact and cost assessment of a novel lignin production method. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrando, M.; Elduque, D.; Javierre, C.; Fueyo, N. Life Cycle Assessment of solar energy systems for the provision of heating, cooling and electricity in buildings: A comparative analysis. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 257, 115402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanyé-Mengual, E.; Biganzoli, F.; Valente, A.; Pfister, S.; Sala, S. What are the main environmental impacts and products contributing to the biodiversity footprint of EU consumption? A comparison of life cycle impact assessment methods and models. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2023, 28, 1194–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, L.; Liu, W.; Yao, J.; Jia, T.; Zhao, Y.; Dai, Y. Life cycle energy, economic, and environmental analysis for the direct-expansion photovoltaic-thermal heat pump system in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 434, 139730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmadbeyki, A.; Ghahderijani, M.; Borghaee, A.; Bakhoda, H. Energy use and environmental impacts analysis of greenhouse crops production using life cycle assessment approach: A case study of cucumber and tomato from Tehran province, Iran. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 988–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Items | Advantage | Defect |
---|---|---|
Ammonia | Carbon-free, mature production chain, easy to transport under pressure | Toxicity, slightly lower energy density |
Hydrogen | Renewable, with sufficient raw materials | Easy to explode, difficult to transport, low energy density |
Green methanol | Low carbon emissions, liquid at room temperature | Carbon emissions and high cost |
LNG | Low cost, suitable as a transition fuel | Carbon emissions require low-temperature storage |
Application | Time and Organization | Technology | Results |
---|---|---|---|
Electric vehicle | 2019/Tesla Report | LCA model | Carbon emissions reduced by approximately 40%. |
LNG Ship | 2020/European Maritime Safety Agency Study | LCA and carbon emission analysis | Carbon emissions reduced by approximately 20–25%. |
Lightweight materials for automobiles | 2021/BMW Group Sustainability Report | LCA combined material flow analysis | Reduce carbon emissions by approximately 10%. |
Electric trucks | 2022/Daimler Research Report | LCA and carbon emission analysis | About 50% lower carbon emissions. |
Hybrid vessel | 2023/China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation Research | LCA and energy consumption models | Hybrid ships save about 15% energy. |
Items | Value |
---|---|
Length (m) | 89.8 |
Shape width (m) | 16.2 |
Maximum load capacity (t) | 2500 |
Container Capacity (TEU) | 200 |
Draft (m) | 5.3 |
Main engine (kW) | 1300 |
Input | Quantity | Unit | Output | Quantity | Unit |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Steel products | 1318.2 | t | SOFC vessels | 1 | Ship |
Paint | 260 | kg | Carbon dioxide | 561.6 | kg |
Gas | 148,590 | kg | Ethanol | 145.6 | kg |
Acetylene | 3783 | kg | Benzyl alcohol | 282.1 | kg |
Power | 475,101.88 | kWh | Methyl ethyl ketone | 42.9 | kg |
Welding wire | 3164.4 | kg | Methyl ethyl ketone | 280.8 | kg |
YSZ | 780 | kg | Benzyl alcohol | 42.9 | kg |
Zirconia | 348.4 | kg | Carbon black | 2.34 | kg |
LSM | 3.12 | kg | Adhesive | 55.12 | kg |
Ethanol | 145.6 | kg | Glycol | 47.06 | kg |
Items | Quantity | Units |
---|---|---|
Ammonia fuel | 55,621 | tons |
Steel | 15,860 | kg |
Ceramics | 4680 | kg |
Electrolyte | 793,000 | kg |
Items | Quantity | Units |
---|---|---|
Power | 2860 | kWh |
Gas | 15,600 | kg |
Water | 13,000 | kg |
Parameter | Diesel ICEs | Ammonia ICEs | Ammonia SOFCs |
---|---|---|---|
Thermal efficiency (%) | 45–53.9 | 40–45 | 50–60 |
NOx emissions (g/kWh) | 10–15 | 5–10 | Negligible (<0.1) |
SOx emissions (g/kWh) | 1–2 | Negligible | Negligible |
Particulate matter (PM) (g/kWh) | 0.1–0.2 | Negligible | Negligible |
Ammonia slip (g/kWh) | N/A | 5–10 | Negligible (<0.1) |
Fuel utilization (%) | 90 | 90 | 95 |
Maintenance requirements | Moderate | Moderate | High |
Lifespan (hours) | 100,000 | 100,000 | 30,000 |
Key advantages | Mature, cost-effective, global fuel infrastructure | Transition technology for ammonia, moderate cost | Near-zero emissions, high environmental performance |
Key challenges | High emissions, reliance on fossil fuels | NOx emissions, ammonia slip, moderate efficiency | High CAPEX, shorter lifespan, maintenance-intensive |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, Y.; Han, F.; Wang, M.; Cui, D.; Ji, Y.; Wang, Z. Life-Cycle Assessment of an Ammonia-Fueled SOFC Container Ship: Identifying Key Impact Drivers and Environmental Advantages over Diesel-Powered Vessels. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 1873. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13101873
Li Y, Han F, Wang M, Cui D, Ji Y, Wang Z. Life-Cycle Assessment of an Ammonia-Fueled SOFC Container Ship: Identifying Key Impact Drivers and Environmental Advantages over Diesel-Powered Vessels. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2025; 13(10):1873. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13101873
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Yupeng, Fenghui Han, Meng Wang, Daan Cui, Yulong Ji, and Zhe Wang. 2025. "Life-Cycle Assessment of an Ammonia-Fueled SOFC Container Ship: Identifying Key Impact Drivers and Environmental Advantages over Diesel-Powered Vessels" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 13, no. 10: 1873. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13101873
APA StyleLi, Y., Han, F., Wang, M., Cui, D., Ji, Y., & Wang, Z. (2025). Life-Cycle Assessment of an Ammonia-Fueled SOFC Container Ship: Identifying Key Impact Drivers and Environmental Advantages over Diesel-Powered Vessels. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 13(10), 1873. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13101873