Identifying an obvious non-fossil fuel solution for all ship types for meeting the greenhouse gas reduction target in shipping is challenging. This paper evaluates the technical viability, environmental impacts, and economic feasibility of different energy carriers for three case vessels of different ship types: a RoPax ferry, a tanker, and a service vessel. The energy carriers examined include battery-electric and three electro-fuels (hydrogen, methanol, and ammonia) which are used in combination with engines and fuel cells. Three methods are used: preliminary ship design feasibility, life cycle assessment, and life cycle costing. The results showed that battery-electric and compressed hydrogen options are not viable for some ships due to insufficient available onboard space for energy storage needed for the vessel's operational range. The global warming reduction potential is shown to depend on the ship type. This reduction potential of assessed options changes also with changes in the carbon intensity of the electricity mix. Life cycle costing results shows that the use of ammonia and methanol in engines has the lowest life cycle cost for all studied case vessels. However, the higher energy conversion losses of these systems make them more vulnerable to fluctuations in the price of electricity. Also, these options have higher environmental impacts on categories like human toxicity, resource use (minerals and metals), and water use. Fuel cells and batteries are not as cost-competitive for the case vessels because of their higher upfront costs and shorter lifetimes. However, these alternatives are less expensive than alternatives with internal combustion engines in the case of higher utilization rates and fuel costs.

为所有船舶类型找到明显的非化石燃料解决方案以实现航运业温室气体减排目标具有挑战性。本文评估了不同船型的三种船舶​​（RoPax 渡轮、油轮和服务船）的不同能源运输船的技术可行性、环境影响和经济可行性。所检查的能源载体包括电池电力和三种电子燃料（氢、甲醇和氨），它们与发动机和燃料电池结合使用。使用三种方法：初步船舶设计可行性、生命周期评估和生命周期成本核算。结果表明，由于船上可用空间不足，无法满足船舶运行范围所需的能量存储，因此电池供电和压缩氢气选项对于某些船舶来说并不可行。研究表明，减少全球变暖的潜力取决于船舶类型。评估方案的减排潜力也会随着电力结构碳强度的变化而变化。生命周期成本计算结果表明，在所有研究案例船舶中，在发动机中使用氨和甲醇的生命周期成本最低。然而，这些系统较高的能量转换损耗使它们更容易受到电价波动的影响。此外，这些选项对人体毒性、资源利用（矿物和金属）和水利用等类别具有更高的环境影响。由于前期成本较高且使用寿命较短，燃料电池和蓄电池对于船舶而言不具有成本竞争力。然而，