Next Article in Journal
Causal Matrix Long Short-Term Memory Network for Interpretable Significant Wave Height Forecasting
Previous Article in Journal
A Novel Sorting Route Planning Method for Irregular Sheet Parts in the Shipbuilding Process
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Life-Cycle Assessment of an Ammonia-Fueled SOFC Container Ship: Identifying Key Impact Drivers and Environmental Advantages over Diesel-Powered Vessels

1
Marine Engineering College, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China
2
National Center for International Research of Subsea Engineering Technology and Equipment, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China
3
State Key Laboratory of Maritime Technology and Safety, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13(10), 1873; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13101873
Submission received: 8 September 2025 / Revised: 19 September 2025 / Accepted: 26 September 2025 / Published: 27 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Ocean Engineering)

Abstract

The use of ammonia-fueled solid oxide fuel cells (NH3-SOFC) in shipping has emerged as a key area of research for advancing zero-carbon transportation. This study integrates and analyzes a novel ship design powered by NH3-SOFCs to quantify its environmental impact across its entire life-cycle, from production to disposal. A 200 TEU ammonia-fueled container ship operating on the Yangtze River is used as the reference vessel. Comprehensive technical analysis and modeling of the ship’s construction, operation, and Decommissioning stages are conducted. By utilizing life-cycle assessment and the ReCiPe 2016 method for calculations, 19 environmental impact indicators were obtained, weighted, and normalized. Life-cycle characterization results reveal that ecosystem and human health impacts are predominantly influenced by the operation stage. Thus, focusing on environmental protection measures and technological innovations during operation is crucial to mitigate these impacts. Conversely, resource depletion is mainly driven by the construction stage, underscoring the need for optimized design, production processes, and the use of eco-friendly materials to reduce resource consumption. A comparative analysis between diesel-powered and ammonia-powered ships shows that while ammonia SOFC ships have a slightly higher environmental load in terms of metal consumption, diesel-powered ships exhibit higher overall environmental loads in other impact indicators. This demonstrates the superior environmental and social benefits of ammonia SOFC ships compared to traditional diesel power systems.

1. Introduction

Transportation is the lifeblood of the economy and the link of civilization. Improving sustainable transportation systems and mechanisms involves adopting environmentally harmonious concepts and measures throughout logistics activities, preventing resource wastage, and promoting the construction of a safe, convenient, efficient, green, and economical transportation system [1]. In recent years, global greenhouse gas emissions have remained high, and environmental pollution issues persist, indicating that the transportation and energy sectors still require new technologies to alleviate environmental pollution [2]. In 2023, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) proposed that international maritime greenhouse gas emissions should peak as soon as possible and achieve net-zero emissions around 2050 [3]. The China Classification Society (CCS) introduced the concept of “green ships” in the “Green Ship Standards,” defining them as vessels that use relatively advanced technologies (green technologies) to economically fulfill their intended functions and performance throughout their lifecycle—from design, manufacturing, and operation to scrapping and recycling—while improving energy efficiency, reducing or eliminating environmental pollution, and providing good protection for operators and users [4,5]. Therefore, fundamentally changing the energy usage model and increasing efforts to iterate propulsion technologies are the only ways to address excessive emissions in the shipping industry. New energy ships not only help reduce emission levels and environmental impact but also improve energy efficiency and enhance the competitiveness of the entire shipping industry [6,7].
Currently, new energy ship propulsion systems include the following options: (1) using nickel-hydrogen, lead-acid, and other power batteries [8]; (2) utilizing wind and solar energy to drive ships [9]; (3) employing traditional power sources like natural gas and petroleum gas [10]; (4) using fuel cells powered by ammonia, hydrogen, and other greenhouse gas-free fuels [11]. Among these, fuel cells have become the preferred battery application solution for research institutions and shipping companies due to their excellent performance and efficient, clean characteristics.
Ammonia is a hydrogen-rich compound that, when used as fuel, produces only nitrogen and water, both of which are environmentally friendly and do not cause pollution [12]. With its high hydrogen content, ammonia can be easily liquefied under pressure at room temperature, facilitating its pressurized transport [13]. In case of leaks during transport, ammonia’s pungent odor allows it to be detected by humans at concentrations far below harmful levels. These properties make ammonia a viable alternative to hydrogen for large-scale application in fuel cells. As supporting technologies for ammonia fuel cells continue to improve, ammonia is set to become the optimal choice for ship batteries [14]. Table 1 lists some current clean alternative energy sources for shipping. Using ammonia-fueled ships can effectively reduce carbon and sulfur oxide emissions, achieving true “zero” emissions [15].
Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) convert hydrogen-rich fuels directly into electricity through an electrochemical process, avoiding the production of acidic gases and solid emissions typical of traditional combustion [12]. Compared to other fuel cells, SOFCs exhibit tremendous potential due to their higher operating temperatures, longer lifespan, and broader fuel adaptability. Their all-solid-state structure eliminates issues related to fluid leaks and corrosion, thereby reducing storage and operational costs for ships [16]. Additionally, SOFCs are primarily made from ceramic materials that do not contain precious metals, further decreasing the cost of large-scale applications. SOFCs have low fuel requirements and can utilize a variety of fuels such as ammonia, biomass gas, and biogas, making them an environmentally friendly and technically mature energy solution for maritime applications [17]. Zare et al. [18] qualitatively evaluated the environmental impacts of SOFC and hydrogen fuel cells in marine propulsion, showing that these technologies can become competitive alternatives for mitigating environmental impact in the future. Li et al. [19] found that, compared to traditional diesel auxiliary power units, SOFC auxiliary power units fueled by liquefied propane gas reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 45% and primary energy consumption by 88%. Wang et al. [20] introduced an SOFC system integrated with steam absorption refrigeration and methane steam reforming, which emits less carbon dioxide than traditional systems. To reduce the space required for transporting ammonia fuel in SOFCs, D et al. designed a flat-tube SOFC fueled by ammonia, achieving power density comparable to that of hydrogen-fueled SOFCs, with similar cell performance. Luo et al. [21] discovered that storing ammonia in metal amines can significantly reduce its toxicity. Guven et al. [22] predicted that operating at lower temperatures (below 700 °C) is a trend to reduce SOFC energy consumption and improve system economics.
The Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) method quantitatively and qualitatively evaluates the environmental impacts and resource consumption of a product throughout its entire lifecycle—from raw material acquisition, production, and usage to final disposal [23]. In the field of automotive and marine propulsion systems, LCA is widely used to assess the environmental impact, energy consumption, and economic benefits of different propulsion systems [24]. (1) Environmental Impact Assessment: This evaluates the environmental effects of automotive and marine propulsion systems throughout their lifecycle, including greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and ecological toxicity. For instance, in the case of electric vehicles, it assesses the impact of electricity production, battery manufacturing, usage, and recycling on the environment [25,26]. (2) Energy Consumption Assessment: This evaluates the energy consumption of automotive and marine propulsion systems over their lifecycle, including the energy used in raw material acquisition, production, and usage. This helps identify key stages of energy consumption and propose energy-saving measures [27,28]. (3) Economic Benefit Assessment: This evaluates the economic benefits of automotive and marine propulsion systems over their lifecycle, including cost analysis and market competitiveness [29,30]. It analyzes the cost differences between electric and fuel-powered vehicles throughout their lifecycle, including purchase cost, maintenance cost, and energy cost.
Several research institutions have established comprehensive LCA databases and assessment methods, providing thorough evaluations of different types of vehicle propulsion systems [10,31,32]. These studies not only focus on environmental impact and energy consumption but also consider economic, social, and other factors. Table 2 shows some examples of applying the LCA method in the automotive and marine fields [32,33,34,35,36].
However, compared to vehicles, the development of LCA databases and assessment methods for ships is still in its infancy. Currently, most research on fuel cells focuses on performance, power consumption, and lifespan under extreme conditions, with few studies addressing emissions and pollution throughout the entire lifecycle process. Ammonia fuel cell ships are still under development, and actual operating parameters and manufacturing materials are unknown [12]. Therefore, a comprehensive and objective analysis of the future production prospects and potential environmental pollution of ammonia-fueled SOFCs has become an urgent issue to address.
While extensive research has been conducted on optimizing the performance of fuel cells for efficiency, durability, and cost, there is limited work focusing specifically on the lifecycle material and energy consumption and the environmental pollution indicators of ammonia-fueled SOFC systems. Existing LCA studies in the maritime sector predominantly evaluate conventional fuels, hydrogen, and methanol, so this paper conducts a comprehensive LCA that models construction, operation, and dismantling phases of ammonia-fueled SOFC ships, using a Yangtze River container ship as the reference vessel. To provide a robust assessment, this study applies the ReCiPe 2016 method to quantify 19 environmental impact categories, including resource depletion, human health, and ecosystem effects, at each stage of the ship’s lifecycle. By normalizing and analyzing the characterization data, the paper offers a detailed view of how ammonia-fueled SOFC systems impact pollution indicators across construction, operation, and end-of-life phases. This allows for the identification of the specific stages and processes where the environmental load is highest, providing insights into the potential environmental benefits and trade-offs associated with ammonia as a fuel. Furthermore, this study introduces a novel comparative analysis between ammonia-fueled SOFC and traditional diesel propulsion systems, evaluating indicators such as greenhouse gas emissions, resource use, and pollutant discharge. Unlike previous research, which typically focuses on either performance optimization or emissions reduction, this work systematically quantifies the environmental advantages of ammonia-fueled SOFC systems over diesel-powered ships. The inclusion of ICEs in the analysis ensures a holistic understanding of the trade-offs between these technologies, highlighting their respective strengths and limitations. This comparative approach provides a robust framework for stakeholders to assess the feasibility, application scenarios, and long-term potential of adopting ammonia-fueled technologies in maritime applications. The findings serve as an objective reference to guide future research and development in propulsion systems.

2. Methodology and Calculations

2.1. System Framework and Boundaries

Figure 1 illustrates the life cycle of an ammonia-fueled SOFC power system ship, divided into these main phases: materials resources, ship construction, ship operation, and ship scrapping. The materials resources phase involves inputs such as iron, steel, nickel, copper, aluminum, lead, plastic, silicon, rubber, glass, and other construction materials [37]. During the ship construction phase, the ship’s structure is built, including the main body, auxiliary devices, hydraulic systems, pipelines, SOFC power unit, power station, electrical components, energy management systems, auxiliary lithium battery, and overall construction [38]. The ship operation phase includes activities like ammonia fuel production, storage, and transportation; handling ammonia fuel onboard; maintaining SOFC and lithium battery systems; auxiliary system maintenance; and day-to-day ship operations. Finally, the ship decommissioning phase encompasses system disassembly, ship structure dismantling, metal recycling, handling non-recyclable waste, incineration, remanufacturing, waste landfill, material reshaping, and final ship scrapping. Throughout these stages, managing the environmental impacts from raw material procurement, energy consumption, emissions, and waste generation is essential. Adopting sustainable practices in material selection, energy usage, and waste management enhances the environmental performance of ammonia-fueled SOFC power system ships, promoting greener and more efficient shipping solutions.
This study uses a common type of 200 TEU Yangtze River container ship in China’s coastal and inland waterway transport as the prototype [39]. The basic parameters of the vessel are listed in Table 3. Figure 2 illustrates the ammonia-fueled SOFC power system. The fuel supply system, exhaust water tank, and waste heat recovery system (WHRS) are considered outside the power system boundary. The SOFC system also includes a selective catalytic reduction (SCR), which filters NOx emissions from the air. The green lines represent NH3, black lines represent electricity, blue lines represent exhaust gases (water and nitrogen), red lines represent waste heat, and yellow lines represent mechanical power. The SOFC’s emissions include water and nitrogen, which are managed outside the system boundary. Like in the previous cases, the fuel supply system is external to the system boundary and includes components such as ammonia evaporators and pressure regulators. Additionally, due to the high operating temperature of SOFCs, the system integrates heat exchangers to utilize the waste heat for other onboard processes, improving overall efficiency. The distribution board remains central to current distribution and control, and similar to the PEMFC system, there are DC/DC converters for the battery and SOFC, as well as DC/AC converters for the auxiliary loads and the motor. Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) are also included due to the nature of the motor and frequency variations in the DC transmission system. The system design ensures that ammonia is efficiently converted into electrical energy while minimizing harmful emissions through the SCR and other control technologies.

2.2. Method and Models

The ReCiPe 2016 method is a commonly used approach in LCA aimed at quantifying the environmental impacts of products, processes, or services throughout their entire life cycle [40]. This method includes four main stages: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis (LCI), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and results interpretation. In the goal and scope definition stage, the purpose of the LCA study, system boundaries, and assumptions are determined. The LCI stage involves collecting and organizing data on energy use, raw material consumption, emissions, and waste management [41]. The LCIA stage transforms these data into environmental impact indicators, divided into several impact categories such as climate change, ozone depletion, and acidification. These indicators are then processed through characterization, normalization, and weighting to yield comprehensive environmental impact results. Finally, in the results interpretation stage, the contributions of different stages or processes to environmental impacts are analyzed and interpreted, and recommendations for reducing environmental impacts are provided. By using the ReCiPe 2016 method, researchers can systematically evaluate the environmental impacts of products or processes, providing scientific evidence for decision-makers and promoting sustainable development. Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a key indicator for measuring the climate impact of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and the midpoint characterization factor for any GHG and time horizon can be calculated based on [42]:
G W P = R F c v L T ( 1 e T H L T x ) R F C O 2 c v C O 2 L T C O 2 ( 1 e C O 2 T H L T x )
where RF, cv, LT, and TH are the radiative efficiency, the substance-specific mass to concentration conversion factor, the lifetime and the time horizon of the assessment, respectively. The subscript CO2 is the global warming potential value over a specific time range. The Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP) measures ozone depletion, measured in CFC-11 equivalents, reflecting the destructive power of substances on ozone, as shown in the following formula [43]:
ODP = Δ E E S C Δ E E S C t , C F C 11 1 e ( t 3 ) k 1 e t , C F C 11 ( t 3 ) k
where EESC, t, k are the effect on the equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine, time and the removal rate, respectively. CFC-11 is trichlorofluoromethane. The subscript here represents the display of equivalents. Using Ionizing Radiation Potential (IRP) to describe radiation that can cause ionization in substances [44].
IRP = C D x C D C o 60 , a i r
where CDx is the collective dose caused by the release of that substance to that compartment and CDCo-60, air is the collective dose caused by the release of a 1 kBq of Co-60 to air. Using particulate matter formation potentials (PMFP) to describe the extent to which particulate matter damages human health [45].
PMFP = ( d P x ) 1 j d C j N j R R ( d P P M 2.5 ) 1 ( j d C j N j R R ) P M 2.5
where dP, dC, N and RR are the total rate of change in precursor substance emissions, concentration variation in intake in each receiving area, the population of the receiving area and the average respiratory rate per person, respectively. The subscript PM2.5 represents the regional weighted average within the period. Using human health ozone formation potentials (HOFP) to describe the extent to which ozone damages human health [46].
HOFP = ( d M x ) 1 j d R j P j B R ( d M H O F P ) 1 ( j d R j P j B R ) H O F P
where dM, dR, P and BR are the total change rate of regional ozone uptake, the rate of change in ozone concentration in each receptor region, the average respiratory rate of the population in the region, respectively. The subscript HOFP represents the regional weighted average within the period. Quantify terrestrial acidification using acidification potential (AP), expressed in kilograms of sulfur dioxide equivalents [47].
AP = F F S j F F a i r ( F F S j F F a i r ) S A
where FFs and FFA are the acidification factors caused by regional emissions in soil and air, respectively. The subscript SA represents the regional weighted average within the period. Quantify freshwater eutrophication using freshwater eutrophication potential (FEP).
FEP = F E S j F E a i r ( F E S j F E a i r ) W
where FEs and FEA are the freshwater eutrophication factors caused by regional emissions from soil and air, respectively. The subscript W represents the regional weighted average within the period. Ecotoxicity can be characterized by the human characteristic factors (HTP) of carcinogenic or non carcinogenic effects synthesized through the environmental persistence of chemicals and the accumulation in the human food chain [48].
HTP = r g iF x EF x iF D C B EF DCB
where iFx and EFx are the proportion of x substances that affect population intake through ingestion pathways and emissions and carcinogenic or non carcinogenic factors on the intake pathway into the atmospheric or soil at a geographic scale, respectively. The subscript DCB represents the toxicity expressed in kg 1,4-dichlorobenzeneequivalents (1,4DCB-eq). The characterization factors of the impact of water and land use on the environment can be measured by the water pressure index (WSI) and the land transformation index (LTI), respectively [49].
WSI = 1 1 + e 6.4 j W U j W A ( 1 0.01 1 )
where WU and WA are the extraction of fresh water from different regions and the hydrological availability within the watershed, respectively.
LTI = ( 1 S L U , x ) S r e f 1 ( ( 1 S L U , x ) S r e f 1 ) a n
where SLU and Sref represent the species richness observed under land use type x and the species richness observed under fixed area reference land cover, respectively. The subscript an represents average reference value. Ultimately, using the ReCiPe 2016 method at both midpoint and endpoint analysis levels in LCA provides comprehensive quantitative results. The endpoint characterization factors include impacts on human health, ecosystems, and resource availability. This method offers a holistic view of environmental impacts throughout a product’s lifecycle, aiding sustainable decision-making [50].
IFe c = F c m , x , i F M , x , a
where IFec, Fcm and FM are the end point feature description factor, midpoint feature factor and feature conversion factor, respectively. The subscript c indicates different categories, including but not limited to human health, terrestrial ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, marine ecosystems or resource scarcity, etc. x denotes the stressor of concern. a is a certain region.

2.3. Data Collection and Sampling

To ensure the reliability and relevance of the data utilized in this LCA for ammonia-fueled SOFC ships, a purposive sampling approach was employed, drawing from multiple data sources that closely mirror real-world operational conditions for comparable maritime propulsion technologies. The sources of data and the sampling mechanism for each lifecycle phase are detailed as below. Primary environmental impact data for ammonia-fueled SOFC vessels were sourced from the GaBi database, tailored for the maritime sector, and supplemented by recent studies on ammonia-based SOFC systems. Given the lack of full-scale data, sampling focused on prototypes and analogous systems, with criteria emphasizing technology compatibility, operational parameters (90–98% ammonia utilization and ~65% SOFC efficiency), and completeness of lifecycle data. Data aggregation and adjustment involved realistic operational data for prototype systems scaled to a 200 TEU Yangtze River container ship, with daily ammonia use estimated at 7.2 tons during sailing and 1.1 tons while docked, while construction and decommissioning data were compiled from industry-standard reports for similar vessel types.
  • Data list for the construction phase of ammonia fuel SOFC power ships
The design and construction of an ammonia-fueled SOFC power system ship involves several crucial phases. In the design phase, the concept design sets key parameters like load capacity and range, designs the ammonia storage and SOFC systems, and ensures safety and efficiency. Detailed design includes refining the ship’s structure, planning ammonia refueling stations, and preparing comprehensive construction plans. The materials selection and procurement phase focuses on choosing durable, recyclable, and environmentally friendly materials for the ship’s hull, high-quality components for the SOFC system, and corrosion-resistant materials for ammonia handling. During manufacturing and assembly, the ship’s hull is built according to the plans, followed by the installation of the SOFC system, ensuring proper connection and sealing of pipes and valves, and setting up the ammonia fuel system with rigorous testing for leak-tightness and pressure resistance. Table 4 shows the inventory data for the construction phase of a 200 TEU container ammonia fuel SOFC-powered ship, as shown in the analogy.
2.
Data list for the operation phase of ammonia fuel SOFC-powered ships
During the operation of ammonia-fueled SOFC-powered ships, material losses and costs primarily involve some key areas: (1) SOFC stack material degradation: The fuel cell stack is the core component of SOFC ships, directly influencing operational efficiency. Throughout its use, the electrode materials and electrolytes may gradually degrade due to chemical reactions and thermal stress. (2) Pipe and valve material wear: The piping and valve system of ammonia-fueled ships is responsible for the transport and distribution of fuel. These components can experience material wear due to ammonia corrosion and erosion during operation. (3) Fuel costs: Ammonia serves as the primary power source, making its cost a significant operating expense. Ammonia fuel prices are influenced by market supply and demand, production costs, and transportation expenses. (4) Maintenance costs: These include periodic inspections, repairs, and component replacements. Given the high technical content of SOFC ships, maintenance costs are relatively high, depending on maintenance schedules, specific tasks, and quality.
According to the “China inland water transport yearbook,” the average annual sailing time for inland waterway ships is approximately 300 days, with about 65 days spent in port. Assuming an SOFC stack efficiency of 65% and an ammonia fuel utilization efficiency of 95%, the calorific value of liquid ammonia is around 5.17 kWh/kg. This calculates to an output of 3192.475 kWh per ton of liquid ammonia from the SOFC system. During sailing, the daily ammonia consumption is approximately 7.17 tons. While docked, the primary power consumption is for auxiliary equipment and living facilities onboard, requiring an assumed power of 150 kW. Thus, the daily ammonia consumption in port is approximately 1.128 tons. Over a 25-year service life, operational phase inventory data, derived from literature and research, are summarized in Table 5.
3.
Data list for the decommissioning phase of ammonia fuel SOFC power ships
During the dismantling and recycling phase of ammonia-fueled SOFC ships, the consumption of materials and resources can be summarized into three main categories: (1) Electricity consumption: Various electric tools and equipment used in the dismantling process, such as cutting machines, cranes, and lighting equipment, require electricity. Additionally, environmental treatment equipment, such as waste gas and wastewater treatment systems, may also need electrical power. (2) Gas consumption: The dismantling process often requires gases to assist in cutting, melting, or separating materials. The direct consumption of gases (such as oxygen and acetylene) can be relatively high. (3) Water consumption: The dismantling process generates wastewater, including cleaning and cooling water. Treating this wastewater requires a certain amount of water resources. Furthermore, the operation of wastewater treatment equipment may also consume water resources. It is worth noting that the paper only focuses on the recycling of raw materials (steel) and the consumption of dismantling. Most of the steel can be recycled when the ship is scrapped. The recycled steel can be reused after processing. The inventory data for the dismantling and recycling process are summarized in Table 6.
4.
ICEs and SOFCs benchmark data
A detailed comparison of diesel ICEs, ammonia-fueled ICEs, and ammonia-fueled SOFCs is conducted, focusing on key parameters including emissions (NOx, SOx, particulate matter, ammonia slip), fuel utilization rates, and operational requirements. Table 7 provides a comprehensive summary of these factors, highlighting the trade-offs between these technologies in terms of efficiency, environmental performance, and maintenance needs. These assumptions and comparisons ensure a holistic and objective evaluation of propulsion systems for maritime applications. Diesel ICEs emit high NOx and SOx (dependent on fuel sulfur), measurable PM, and require maintenance. Ammonia ICEs emit less NOx but still need after-treatment; they produce negligible SOx and no PM but may have ammonia slip without advanced treatment. SOFCs avoid NOx and SOx formation, have negligible ammonia slip due to high fuel utilization, but require stack replacements every 30,000 h due to material degradation. ICE systems have long lifespans exceeding 100,000 h, while SOFC stacks need periodic replacement.

2.4. Assumptions, Limitations and Validation

This study provides a comprehensive LCA of ammonia-fueled SOFC ships. However, there are several limitations and assumptions to consider:
(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.
Environmental impact data sources: The study relies on the ReCiPe 2016 impact factors and GaBi software’s environmental data, which are based on periodically updated industry standards. While these data sources provide a comprehensive view of emissions and environmental impacts, they may vary with future updates or region-specific adjustments, potentially affecting the generalizability of our impact results.
Equation for normalized impact score:
E i = I i I r e f
where Ei is the normalized environmental impact score for indicator i, Ii represents the calculated impact for ammonia SOFC, and Iref is the baseline impact from diesel systems. Variance analysis calculation for hypothesis testing:
F = M S b M S w
where MS represents mean square values for variance components. This was used to confirm statistically significant differences between the environmental impacts of the two systems.
These limitations and assumptions are inherent in modeling lifecycle impacts for emerging technologies and may influence the precision of our findings. Future research with access to broader operational data and technological advancements will be necessary to refine the environmental assessment of ammonia-fueled SOFC systems in the shipping industry.
To ensure the accuracy and reliability of the model, its outcomes are validated using multiple rigorous approaches.
(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

As shown in Figure 3, the lifecycle environmental impact assessment of ammonia-fueled SOFC-powered ships reveals a range of characterization indicators that reflect distinct environmental pressures associated with this technology. Among these, the climate change impact is particularly prominent, equating to approximately 3495 tons of CO2 emissions. This finding highlights that although ammonia-fueled ships utilize clean fuel and eliminate direct CO2 emissions from combustion, significant greenhouse gases can still be generated indirectly throughout the lifecycle stages, including fuel production, transportation, and disposal. This suggests that while ammonia is a promising alternative fuel, additional improvements in fuel production and operational efficiency are needed to minimize its overall carbon footprint and further align with global climate goals.
In addition to climate change, the terrestrial ecotoxicity impact reaches 1573.08 tons of 1,4-dichlorobenzene (1,4-DB) equivalents, signaling potential threats to terrestrial ecosystems. This high level of ecotoxicity is primarily linked to the use of heavy metals and other materials in the construction and maintenance phases, as well as the chemical byproducts associated with ammonia production. These components may contribute to soil contamination and toxic effects on land-based organisms over time. This finding underlines the importance of pursuing alternative, eco-friendlier materials and implementing stricter waste management protocols during shipbuilding to mitigate the terrestrial environmental impacts of ammonia-fueled SOFC technology.
Moreover, fossil resource depletion (984.24 tons of oil equivalents) and non-carcinogenic human toxicity (200.49 tons of 1,4-DB equivalents) are also notable, indicating that ammonia-fueled SOFC ships impose considerable demands on non-renewable resources and present potential health risks. The fossil resource depletion impact is mainly driven by the substantial energy requirements in ammonia production and the extraction of raw materials for construction. To address this, integrating renewable energy sources into the ammonia production process could significantly reduce reliance on fossil resources. The non-carcinogenic toxicity impact suggests that the materials and chemicals used may pose health risks, necessitating further research into safer alternatives and the development of more stringent exposure controls for workers involved in ship construction and maintenance.
Conversely, certain environmental impact categories appear well controlled over the lifecycle of ammonia-fueled SOFC ships. Indicators such as particulate matter formation, water resource consumption, human carcinogenic toxicity, and ionizing radiation present relatively low values. For instance, particulate matter formation is significantly lower compared to conventional marine engines, likely due to the absence of direct combustion processes in SOFC operation. Low water resource consumption and minimal ionizing radiation impacts suggest effective water management strategies and material choices during design, construction, and operation. These findings suggest that design optimizations and clean fuel choices have successfully mitigated some environmental risks associated with traditional marine fuels.
Overall, the lifecycle environmental impact of ammonia-fueled SOFC ships is diverse, with particularly significant impacts on climate change and terrestrial ecotoxicity, while other environmental risks are effectively managed. These insights emphasize the need for continuous research to further reduce resource consumption, emissions, and toxicity throughout the lifecycle. Future improvements in material selection, fuel production processes, and waste management could enhance the environmental performance of ammonia-fueled SOFC ships, guiding sustainable practices in the shipping industry.
Figure 4 visually reveals the intrinsic relationships among key characterization indicators during the construction, operation, and decommissioning stages of ammonia-fueled SOFC-powered ships throughout their lifecycle. It comprehensively illustrates the proportion of characterization results at each stage. For key indicators such as climate change, ionizing radiation, and human carcinogenic toxicity, the environmental impacts generated during the operational stage significantly exceed those during the construction stage. Although ammonia fuel is considered a clean energy source, its manufacturing and production processes inevitably generate pollution. Particularly during the operational stage, the substantial consumption of ammonia fuel still has a notable impact on climate change. However, for another set of characterization indicators—such as particulate matter formation, fossil fuel consumption, water resource consumption, freshwater ecotoxicity, and marine ecotoxicity—the environmental impacts during the construction stage are significantly greater than during the operational stage. This is primarily due to the extraction, processing, and transportation of raw materials involved in shipbuilding, which typically result in substantial energy consumption and pollutant emissions. In contrast, the use of ammonia as a clean fuel during the operational stage significantly reduces the environmental burden of these indicators, thereby achieving effective control of these impacts.
The environmental impacts of ammonia-fueled SOFC-powered ships throughout their lifecycle are mainly concentrated in the construction and operational stages. The significance and persistence of climate change impacts, in particular, necessitate more attention and research in future ship design and operation. While particulate matter formation and water resource consumption are better controlled during the operational stage, continued efforts are needed to further reduce these environmental impacts through technological innovation and policy guidance. In the future, it is essential to actively explore and adopt more environmentally friendly materials, optimized production processes, and advanced emission reduction technologies to promote the green and sustainable development of the maritime transport industry and contribute more significantly to global environmental protection.
Figure 5 presents a detailed characterization evaluation of the normalized impacts across the lifecycle of ammonia-fueled SOFC-powered ships. The defined “Human health impacts” represent potential threats to human health throughout the entire lifecycle, specifically reflecting the overall likelihood of causing diseases. This indicator comprehensively considers multiple health-related characterization metrics such as ionizing radiation and human carcinogenic toxicity. The introduced “Ecosystem impacts” quantifies the overall harm to ecosystems, covering indicators like particulate matter formation, freshwater ecotoxicity, and marine ecotoxicity, thereby fully reflecting the potential impact of ship operations on ecosystem health. Lastly, the “Resource Impacts” quantifies the total value of resource consumption generated throughout the lifecycle, combining multiple resource utilization-related indicators such as fossil energy consumption and water resource consumption, thus revealing the ship’s dependency on resources and the potential pressure on environmental resources.
The statistical breakdown of contributions to endpoint environmental impacts across the main stages of the lifecycle—construction, operation, and Decommissioning—shows the proportion of impacts on human health, ecosystem health, and resource depletion. Resource impact is the most significant, dominating the evaluation and highlighting the importance of resource consumption in ship operations. Following closely is the impact on human health, reflecting the potential health threats posed by ammonia-fueled SOFC-powered ships throughout their lifecycle. Despite ammonia fuel being a clean energy source that reduces harmful emissions to some extent, its manufacturing, usage, and disposal processes may still pose certain health risks. Therefore, further research is needed to explore ways to mitigate these impacts and ensure public health. The ecosystem impact ranks third in the normalized results, indicating a relatively smaller overall impact on ecosystems over the ship’s lifecycle.
The higher contributions of ecosystem and human health impacts during the operational phase are due to factors such as emissions and waste management during this stage. Therefore, it is crucial to focus on environmental measures and technological innovations during the operational phase to reduce impacts on the environment and human health. In contrast, the significant resource consumption during the shipbuilding phase is attributed to the extraction, processing, and transportation of raw materials. Resource impact is primarily influenced by the construction phase, necessitating the optimization of design and production processes and the adoption of environmentally friendly materials to reduce resource consumption and achieve efficient and sustainable use of resources.

3.2. The Impact of Different Substance Inputs on the Environment

To delve deeper into the environmental impact of ammonia-fueled ship systems throughout their lifecycle, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 provide a detailed analysis of the specific effects of different material inputs during the three core phases: construction, operation, and Decommissioning. This analysis clearly identifies the unique environmental burden characteristics of each phase due to varying material inputs. During the construction phase, the environmental burden is primarily concentrated on resource and energy consumption due to the extensive use of manufacturing materials. As the ship enters the operational phase, the main sources of environmental burden shift to fuel consumption and the materials required for daily maintenance. Among these, the use of ammonia fuel and its associated emissions has a particularly notable environmental impact. Finally, in the decommissioning phase, while the recycling and reuse of materials help alleviate some of the environmental burden, the waste and pollution generated during the dismantling process remain significant environmental concerns.
As shown in Figure 6, during the construction phase of the ammonia-fueled SOFC-powered ship, the input of steel has a significant impact on various environmental indicators, dominating the influence across all metrics. Particularly, steel usage is the primary driving factor in critical indicators such as freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication, and metal depletion. The use of electricity during the construction phase also has a notable impact on environmental indicators, second only to steel input. It exerts significant environmental pressure, especially in terms of ionizing radiation, water resource consumption, and ozone depletion. It is worth noting that electricity usage has a negative impact on the metal depletion indicator, meaning that electricity usage actually has a positive environmental benefit in terms of metal consumption. However, this benefit is not sufficient to completely offset the negative effects brought by the input of other materials. Additionally, the use of industrial gases plays a significant role in fossil energy consumption, indicating that reducing industrial gas usage or adopting alternative energy sources will be an important strategy for reducing fossil energy consumption in future ship construction and operation processes. Furthermore, the use of YSZ exhibits positive environmental benefits in terms of climate change. This suggests that future research could further explore YSZ and similar materials to uncover their greater potential in environmental protection.
From the detailed data in Figure 7, it can be observed that during the operational phase of the ammonia-fueled SOFC-powered ship, the use of ammonia fuel has a significant impact on the critical environmental indicator of climate change, accounting for nearly the entire influence on climate change during this phase. On the other hand, the use of electrolytes also presents a distinct pattern of environmental impact. While its effect on the two climate change-related indicators is relatively minor, the electrolytes exert a substantial influence on several other environmental indicators. As key materials consumed in the SOFC reactions, managing the frequency of SOFC power system failures during the operational phase could be an effective strategy to reduce the overall environmental impact throughout the ship’s life-cycle.
Figure 8 shows the impact percentages of electricity, oxygen, and water consumption on various environmental indicators during the Decommissioning phase of the ammonia-fueled SOFC-powered ship. Both electricity and oxygen consumption significantly influence multiple environmental indicators, with their impact levels being roughly equivalent. Water consumption primarily affects specific indicators such as water resource depletion, metal consumption, and freshwater eutrophication. These findings suggest that during the disposal phase, the use of recycled or reclaimed water instead of fresh water could be considered. This substitution would not only reduce direct water resource consumption but also lower the risk of freshwater eutrophication by minimizing wastewater discharge.
Figure 9 illustrates that during the construction phase of ammonia-fueled ships, steel usage dominates the three major impact categories. Steel’s usage notably affects human health and ecosystems, highlighting its potential environmental risks. Regarding resource impact, the consumption of industrial gases is more significant compared to the other two categories, which is related to the specific energy supply methods during ship construction.
Figure 10 shows that during the operational phase of ammonia-fueled ships, the use of ammonia fuel has a particularly pronounced impact on human health and ecosystems, almost exclusively dominating these categories, underscoring the potential environmental risks of liquid ammonia in ship operations. Meanwhile, electrolyte usage significantly impacts resource consumption, reflecting the specific uses and consumption patterns of SOFC power during ship operation. In contrast, the impact of steel and ceramic usage on resource consumption is relatively limited.
Figure 11 demonstrates that during the disposal phase of ammonia-fueled ships, the consumption of electricity and industrial gases dominates the three major impact categories, with their proportions being roughly equal across all categories. Water’s impact on resource consumption is negligible, almost insignificant. This finding indicates specific directions for reducing environmental impacts during the ship recycling and dismantling stages.

3.3. Parameter Sensitivity Analysis Results

The sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the robustness of the lifecycle assessment model by varying key parameters such as SOFC efficiency, ammonia utilization rate, SOFC lifespan, and efficiency degradation. The results demonstrated that while these parameters influenced specific environmental impacts, the general trends and conclusions regarding the environmental advantages of SOFC systems remained stable.
For SOFC efficiency, increasing it to 70% resulted in a 5% reduction in total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, as improved efficiency directly reduces fuel consumption and associated emissions. Conversely, lowering SOFC efficiency to 60% caused a 5% increase in emissions, highlighting the relatively low sensitivity of the model to minor efficiency changes within the studied range. Similarly, optimizing ammonia utilization from 90% to 98% reduced ammonia-related emissions, such as unburned ammonia and slip, by 4%, whereas a decrease in utilization to 90% increased these emissions by 6%. This underscores the importance of high ammonia utilization rates to minimize indirect environmental impacts, particularly during the operational phase.
The sensitivity analysis also explored the impact of SOFC stack lifespan and efficiency degradation. A shorter stack lifespan of 20,000 operational hours increased cumulative lifecycle environmental impacts by approximately 15%, mainly due to the additional resource use and emissions from more frequent stack replacements. Conversely, extending the stack lifespan to 40,000 h reduced lifecycle impacts by 10%, demonstrating the environmental benefits of improved stack durability. Efficiency degradation was another critical factor, with a higher degradation rate of 1% per 1000 h leading to a 7% increase in greenhouse gas emissions compared to the baseline rate of 0.25%.
Overall, the findings underscore the critical role of SOFC lifespan, efficiency, stability, and ammonia utilization in determining lifecycle environmental performance. Frequent stack replacements not only increase resource depletion and emissions but also reduce cost-effectiveness. On the other hand, extending stack durability and minimizing efficiency degradation significantly enhances the sustainability of ammonia-fueled SOFC systems. These results emphasize the importance of material advancements, operational optimization, and maintenance practices to ensure the long-term viability of SOFC technology for maritime applications.

3.4. Comparative Evaluation of Ships with Different Power Systems

To precisely compare the environmental load differences between ammonia-fueled SOFC-powered ships, ammonia-fueled ICE ships, and traditional diesel-powered ships, this study utilizes a baseline vessel: a 200 TEU Yangtze River container ship with a full power capacity of 954 kW. The ship is modeled to operate for 300 days annually, with 65 days spent at port, an average of 18 h of navigation per day, and a 150 kW power requirement during port stays, across a 25-year service life. For this analysis, it is reasonably assumed that similarly sized ships will generate comparable environmental loads during the construction and dismantling phases, as these stages are governed by the standardized and regulated practices within modern shipbuilding and recycling industries. By controlling for the construction and dismantling phase impacts, this approximation isolates the environmental load differences to the operational phase, where ammonia-fueled SOFC, ammonia ICE, and diesel systems demonstrate distinct environmental profiles. This focus on the operational phase provides a more direct comparison of each power system’s performance in terms of energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and other pollutant emissions. Ammonia ICE systems, while emitting lower CO2 and SOx than diesel engines, still produce some NOx emissions due to the combustion process, though these are reduced relative to diesel systems. Ammonia SOFC systems, on the other hand, produce minimal NOx and greenhouse gases due to their non-combustion-based electrochemical process, positioning them as the cleanest alternative. This analysis approach clarifies the operational impact differences between ammonia and diesel systems, offering clearer guidance for selecting and optimizing ship power systems to meet environmental standards.
From Figure 12, it is clear that traditional diesel-powered ships, ammonia-fueled SOFC ships, and ammonia ICE ships exhibit marked differences in several key environmental impact categories, underscoring the potential environmental benefits and trade-offs of each system. For the core indicator of climate change, ammonia-fueled SOFC systems show the lowest greenhouse gas emissions, both with and without biochar consideration, highlighting their superior performance in reducing CO2-equivalent emissions. Diesel-powered ships, by contrast, display significantly higher GHG emissions due to their reliance on fossil fuels. Ammonia ICEs perform better than diesel engines regarding climate impact, but are still outperformed by SOFC systems. The electrochemical process in SOFCs avoids combustion, thereby minimizing CO2 and NOx emissions, which are prevalent in both diesel and ammonia ICE systems. This advantage in GHG reduction positions ammonia SOFC technology as an effective tool for decarbonizing the shipping industry.
Diesel engines exhibit the highest fossil fuel consumption among the three systems, which aligns with their greater reliance on petroleum-based fuels. Ammonia ICEs and SOFCs both utilize ammonia as a non-carbon fuel, significantly reducing fossil fuel dependency. However, ammonia ICE systems may still involve higher fossil energy use than SOFCs due to efficiency losses and energy demands in ammonia production. SOFCs, with their higher fuel efficiency, reduce overall ammonia consumption, making them the most efficient option among the three in terms of fossil fuel impact.
In categories such as non-carcinogenic human toxicity, terrestrial acidification, and terrestrial ecotoxicity, diesel-powered systems exhibit the highest environmental loads due to high NOx and sulfur emissions from diesel combustion. Ammonia ICEs show moderate improvements over diesel, but the combustion process still produces some NOx emissions, requiring additional after-treatment systems to meet emission standards. Ammonia SOFCs, however, generate minimal NOx emissions due to their electrochemical operation, substantially lowering their toxicity and acidification impacts. This advantage positions ammonia SOFCs as a cleaner alternative with reduced health and ecological risks compared to ICE-based systems.
One notable drawback of ammonia SOFC systems is their higher metal consumption compared to diesel and ammonia ICE systems. This increased demand for metals, such as rare earth materials and platinum-group metals, is largely due to SOFC manufacturing, particularly for the fuel cell stack and catalysts. Although this adds to the environmental load in terms of metal depletion, it can be partially mitigated through recycling strategies and advancements in fuel cell technology to reduce precious metal dependency. In contrast, ammonia and diesel ICEs generally require fewer specialized metals, resulting in a lower metal consumption indicator.
Across other environmental impact categories—such as particulate matter formation, water resource consumption, human carcinogenic toxicity, and ionizing radiation—diesel engines consistently show a higher environmental load. Particulate matter and SOx emissions are significantly lower in both ammonia SOFC and ICE systems due to ammonia’s inherent combustion properties and the absence of sulfur. Among the three systems, SOFCs exhibit the lowest particulate emissions, attributed to their non-combustion-based energy generation. This further underscores the advantages of ammonia SOFCs for minimizing local air pollution and protecting human health. Ammonia-fueled SOFCs stand out as the most environmentally favorable technology among the three options, offering the lowest GHG emissions, reduced fossil fuel dependency, and minimal air pollution impacts. While ammonia ICEs present a cleaner alternative to diesel engines, they still fall short of SOFCs in emissions and efficiency. Although SOFCs exhibit a slightly higher environmental load in metal consumption, their overall lifecycle impact remains lower than that of traditional ICE systems.
The comparison between ICEs and SOFCs is based on objective benchmarks reported in the literature. ICEs, particularly commercial marine diesel engines, achieve brake thermal efficiencies of up to 53.9% and benefit from the ability to directly drive the propeller without requiring a gearbox system. SOFC systems, with electrical efficiencies ranging from 50% to 60%, may experience system losses when coupled with electric motors and gearboxes. However, SOFCs offer distinct advantages in emissions reduction, producing near-zero NOx and SOx emissions, and are well-suited for hybrid and all-electric ship configurations. The choice between these systems should therefore consider not only fuel efficiency but also environmental performance, operational requirements, and regulatory compliance.
The 30-year service life of most ships and their continuous 24 h operation require main power systems with a design lifespan exceeding 100,000 h. Current commercial SOFC stacks have lifespans that are insufficient to meet these operational requirements without periodic replacement. This poses challenges in terms of downtime, operational losses during maintenance, and the high cost of replacing fuel cell stacks. Modular and replaceable designs, combined with advancements in stack durability, are potential solutions to mitigate these limitations.
While the CAPEX cost of SOFC systems is significantly higher than that of traditional ICEs, this disparity must be considered alongside long-term environmental and operational benefits. SOFCs offer near-zero NOx and SOx emissions and higher overall efficiency, which can offset some of the initial cost disadvantages through lower OPEX. Moreover, as SOFC technology matures and economies of scale are realized, CAPEX costs are expected to decrease significantly, similar to trends observed in other green technologies. Therefore, the adoption of SOFCs represents a forward-looking strategy aligned with the maritime sector’s decarbonization goals.

4. Conclusions

This paper is based on the analysis and research results of scholars both domestically and internationally on the life cycle assessment of ships, combined with research data from relevant enterprises, to objectively analyze ammonia-fueled SOFC-powered ships. By utilizing GaBi software for analysis and the ReCiPe 2016 method for calculations, 19 environmental impact indicators were obtained, weighted and normalized. Finally, the operational phase characterization results of traditional diesel-powered ships, ammonia-fueled SOFC ships, and ammonia ICE ships were compared. The main findings of this study are summarized as follows:
(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.
While diesel ICEs currently dominate maritime applications due to their cost-effectiveness and maturity, ammonia-fueled SOFC systems offer a promising pathway for the shipping industry’s green transition, with significant potential to reduce environmental impacts. The findings highlight the importance of ongoing research, policy support, and infrastructure improvements to address adoption challenges and promote sustainable maritime transport. Furthermore, the decline in lifespan and efficiency of solid oxide fuel cells is a key parameter in the environmental performance of the lifecycle, emphasizing the necessity of improving the durability and performance stability of the fuel cell stack. These insights provide valuable guidance for stakeholders and technology developers, supporting the advancement of SOFC systems for future maritime applications.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.L. and Z.W.; methodology, Y.L.; software, Y.L.; validation, M.W., Y.L. and Z.W.; formal analysis, Y.L.; investigation, F.H.; resources, F.H.; data curation, Z.W.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.L.; writing—review and editing, Z.W.; visualization, D.C.; supervision, Y.J.; project administration, Y.J.; funding acquisition, Y.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China (2023YFB4301705), National Natural Science Foundation of China (52571328), the Open Fund of State Key Laboratory of Maritime Technology and Safety.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to the non disclosure restrictions on the data of cooperative-funded enterprises.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. 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]
  6. 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]
  7. 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]
  8. 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]
  9. 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]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]
  15. 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]
  16. 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]
  17. 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]
  18. 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]
  19. 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]
  20. 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]
  21. 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]
  22. 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]
  23. 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]
  24. 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]
  25. 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]
  26. 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]
  27. 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]
  28. Guven, D.; Kayalica, M.O. Environmental and economic assessment of hydrogen-powered ferries for inland transportation. Ocean Eng. 2024, 301, 117556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. 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]
  30. 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]
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. 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]
  34. 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]
  35. 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]
  36. 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]
  37. 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]
  38. 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]
  39. 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]
  40. 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]
  41. 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]
  42. 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]
  43. 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]
  44. 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]
  45. 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]
  46. 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]
  47. 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]
  48. 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]
  49. 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]
  50. 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]
Figure 1. This is a figure. Schemes follow the same formatting.
Figure 1. This is a figure. Schemes follow the same formatting.
Jmse 13 01873 g001
Figure 2. The ammonia-fueled SOFC power system for ships.
Figure 2. The ammonia-fueled SOFC power system for ships.
Jmse 13 01873 g002
Figure 3. Quantitative results of 19 environmental impact characterization indicators for the full life cycle of ammonia-fueled SOFC vessels.
Figure 3. Quantitative results of 19 environmental impact characterization indicators for the full life cycle of ammonia-fueled SOFC vessels.
Jmse 13 01873 g003
Figure 4. Contribution proportions of the construction (inner ring), operational (middle ring), and decommissioning (outer ring) stages to 19 environmental impact indicators for ammonia-fueled SOFC vessels.
Figure 4. Contribution proportions of the construction (inner ring), operational (middle ring), and decommissioning (outer ring) stages to 19 environmental impact indicators for ammonia-fueled SOFC vessels.
Jmse 13 01873 g004
Figure 5. Normalized contributions of the three stages of the full life cycle of ammonia-fueled SOFC vessels to the three endpoint indicators.
Figure 5. Normalized contributions of the three stages of the full life cycle of ammonia-fueled SOFC vessels to the three endpoint indicators.
Jmse 13 01873 g005
Figure 6. The impact of input material characterization during the construction.
Figure 6. The impact of input material characterization during the construction.
Jmse 13 01873 g006
Figure 7. The impact of input material characterization during the operation.
Figure 7. The impact of input material characterization during the operation.
Jmse 13 01873 g007
Figure 8. The impact of input material characterization during the Decommissioning.
Figure 8. The impact of input material characterization during the Decommissioning.
Jmse 13 01873 g008
Figure 9. Assessment of impact characteristics during the construction.
Figure 9. Assessment of impact characteristics during the construction.
Jmse 13 01873 g009
Figure 10. Assessment of impact characteristics during the operation.
Figure 10. Assessment of impact characteristics during the operation.
Jmse 13 01873 g010
Figure 11. Assessment of impact characteristics during the Decommissioning.
Figure 11. Assessment of impact characteristics during the Decommissioning.
Jmse 13 01873 g011
Figure 12. Comparative evaluation of ships with different power systems.
Figure 12. Comparative evaluation of ships with different power systems.
Jmse 13 01873 g012
Table 1. Comparison of alternative fuels for shipping.
Table 1. Comparison of alternative fuels for shipping.
ItemsAdvantageDefect
AmmoniaCarbon-free, mature production chain, easy to transport under pressureToxicity, slightly lower energy density
HydrogenRenewable, with sufficient raw materialsEasy to explode, difficult to transport, low energy density
Green methanolLow carbon emissions, liquid at room temperatureCarbon emissions and high cost
LNGLow cost, suitable as a transition fuelCarbon emissions require low-temperature storage
Table 2. The application of full LCA on vehicles and ships.
Table 2. The application of full LCA on vehicles and ships.
ApplicationTime and OrganizationTechnologyResults
Electric vehicle2019/Tesla ReportLCA modelCarbon emissions reduced by approximately 40%.
LNG Ship2020/European Maritime Safety Agency StudyLCA and carbon emission analysisCarbon emissions reduced by approximately 20–25%.
Lightweight materials for automobiles2021/BMW Group Sustainability ReportLCA combined material flow analysisReduce carbon emissions by approximately 10%.
Electric trucks2022/Daimler Research ReportLCA and carbon emission analysisAbout 50% lower carbon emissions.
Hybrid vessel2023/China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation ResearchLCA and energy consumption modelsHybrid ships save about 15% energy.
Table 3. Specification of mother container ship.
Table 3. Specification of mother container ship.
ItemsValue
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
Table 4. List of construction stages for ammonia fuel SOFC-powered ships.
Table 4. List of construction stages for ammonia fuel SOFC-powered ships.
InputQuantityUnitOutputQuantityUnit
Steel products1318.2tSOFC vessels1Ship
Paint260kgCarbon dioxide561.6kg
Gas148,590kgEthanol145.6kg
Acetylene3783kgBenzyl alcohol282.1kg
Power475,101.88kWhMethyl ethyl ketone42.9kg
Welding wire3164.4kgMethyl ethyl ketone280.8kg
YSZ780kgBenzyl alcohol42.9kg
Zirconia348.4kgCarbon black2.34kg
LSM3.12kgAdhesive55.12kg
Ethanol145.6kgGlycol47.06kg
Table 5. List of operation stages for ammonia fuel SOFC-powered ships.
Table 5. List of operation stages for ammonia fuel SOFC-powered ships.
ItemsQuantityUnits
Ammonia fuel55,621tons
Steel15,860kg
Ceramics4680kg
Electrolyte793,000kg
Table 6. List of decommissioning stages for ammonia fuel SOFC-powered ships.
Table 6. List of decommissioning stages for ammonia fuel SOFC-powered ships.
ItemsQuantityUnits
Power2860kWh
Gas15,600kg
Water13,000kg
Table 7. ICEs and SOFCs benchmark data.
Table 7. ICEs and SOFCs benchmark data.
ParameterDiesel ICEsAmmonia ICEsAmmonia SOFCs
Thermal efficiency (%)45–53.940–4550–60
NOx emissions (g/kWh)10–155–10Negligible (<0.1)
SOx emissions (g/kWh)1–2NegligibleNegligible
Particulate matter (PM) (g/kWh)0.1–0.2NegligibleNegligible
Ammonia slip (g/kWh)N/A5–10Negligible (<0.1)
Fuel utilization (%)909095
Maintenance requirementsModerateModerateHigh
Lifespan (hours)100,000100,00030,000
Key advantagesMature, cost-effective, global fuel infrastructureTransition technology for ammonia, moderate costNear-zero emissions, high environmental performance
Key challengesHigh emissions, reliance on fossil fuelsNOx emissions, ammonia slip, moderate efficiencyHigh 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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

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

AMA Style

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 Style

Li, 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 Style

Li, 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

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop