Shipping Needs Biofuels Now, but Who Supplies the Biomass?

Shipping companies are running out of time on emissions. New EU regulations will require vessels calling at European ports to prove they are cutting carbon, starting in 2030. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is tightening its own ratings every year. For ship owners who need to act within the next budget cycle, the options narrow quickly to fuels that work in the engines and fuel tanks they already have.

Sean M. Holt, Phi Earth’s President of International, examined this reality in a recent piece for The Maritime Executive titled “Winning Formula: Power, Fuel, and Flexibility in Maritime Decarbonisation”. His reporting draws on input from Auramarine, a Finnish marine fuel systems company, and PowerCell, a Swedish hydrogen fuel cell developer. Both companies agree on one thing: biofuels are the compliance tool that works right now, and the limiting factor is supply.

Why biofuels work for existing ships

The economics are simple. Ship owners can either spend heavily to retrofit vessels for entirely new fuels like methanol or ammonia, or they can use biofuels that go straight into existing engines with little or no modification. As Holt reports, Auramarine’s position is clear: “especially the biofuels covered by ISO 8217:2024 offer a rare combination of safety, immediate emissions reduction, and near zero capital expenditure.”

For a certain class of biofuels, the equipment side is already solved. Bio-based blends can be pumped into existing fuel systems, meet existing safety standards, and cut carbon from day one without engine swaps, extended dry dock time, or crew retraining.

The adoption pattern confirms this. As Holt writes: “Short-sea, feeder, and regional vessels with frequent calls in European waters are often early adopters. Tanker, Ro-Ro, and Ro-Pax fleets with regular schedules and centralised fleet management are also advancing quickly.” The ships moving first are the ones with the most predictable routes and the highest regulatory pressure.

Fuel cells tell the same story

PowerCell takes a different approach, converting clean fuels into electricity onboard rather than burning them. The technology is past the pilot stage. Holt reports that fuel cell systems “matured significantly in 2025,” with commercial orders now covering passenger ferries, cargo ships, superyachts, and cruise vessels. PowerCell’s first commercial methanol-to-power system sale is worth roughly $17 million.

But both companies land on the same bottleneck. As Holt writes: “Fuel availability, for now, sets the outer boundary. PowerCell expects renewable methanol and other green fuels to remain scarce in the near term. Auramarine faces the same operational challenge.”

The hardware is ready or getting there, and the regulations have dates on them. What neither company has solved is where enough raw material comes from to make the fuel at scale.

A big buyer is forming

Maritime shipping produces roughly 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The IMO has committed to net-zero by or around 2050, with interim targets along the way. EU regulations alone cover thousands of vessel arrivals per year.

Holt’s article puts it plainly: “What matters now is not which fuel wins in 2050, but what can be deployed today without breaking operations.” Whether biofuels can be deployed depends on whether there is enough biomass, at the right quality, at stable prices, season after season.

Quality here means hitting exact numbers. Maritime biofuels have to meet international standards, which means the raw biomass and the refining process must produce fuel that burns cleanly and performs the same way every time. If feedstock quality swings from batch to batch, fuel quality swings too. That means failed compliance checks, engine trouble, or both.

For biomass producers, the requirements are clear: deliver in volume, hold quality steady, prove sustainability with documentation, and price it so the final fuel competes. Miss on any of those and the contract goes elsewhere.

Today’s feedstock sources have ceilings

Most biofuel feedstock today comes from used cooking oil, animal fats, and oilseed crops. Each has limits. Used cooking oil is already oversubscribed across aviation, road transport, and shipping. Oilseed crops compete with food production and draw sustainability questions.

Fast-growing tree species offer a different profile. Certain trees grown specifically for biomass can produce usable material in 3-5 year cycles, compared to decades for conventional timber. They can grow on marginal land without displacing food crops. And when managed well, the growing process itself can improve soil health and store carbon, which helps meet the sustainability requirements that biofuel buyers need to see.

Scaling this kind of supply, though, takes the same discipline Auramarine describes on the fuel side. You have to measure what matters, keep quality consistent, and build proof over multiple seasons. Yield depends on soil, climate, and how the crop is managed. Quality depends on when you harvest and how you handle the material afterward. Every variable left unmanaged is a risk to the buyer downstream.

Feedstock buyers want the same proof that fuel buyers do

Holt’s article includes a line from PowerCell that applies just as well to feedstock: “The most important learning comes from operational data over time, including reliability, uptime, degradation rates, maintenance needs, and performance under variable loads and conditions.”

Replace “fuel cell” with “biomass plantation” and the point holds. Buyers who sign long-term contracts for biofuel feedstock need multi-season yield records, quality data, sustainability documentation, and proof that logistics work. They need to see that a supply operation delivers to spec quarter after quarter, not that a single trial plot produced good numbers once.

This is where Phi Earth works. We improve the economics and reliability of biomass production using a non-GMO growth protocol applied directly to plants and soil. Our current focus is fast-growing Paulownia trees, which produce feedstock for biochar, bio-coke, and bio-based fuels, including those used in sustainable aviation fuel and maritime fuel supply chains.

Our model is built around the consistency problem. Standardised deployment kits mean new growing sites follow documented protocols instead of starting from scratch. A planning tool evaluates local conditions and checks the economics before capital goes in. Every site generates data on soil, growth rates, and protocol performance, so each new deployment benefits from what came before.

None of this counts unless the feedstock reliably meets buyer specs. That is the standard we measure against, and we apply it everywhere we operate.

The supply side is where the race is now

Maritime emissions regulations are already in force, with EU requirements active and IMO ratings tightening annually. Ship owners are deciding now how they will comply, and biofuels are the path that fits their existing operations.

As Holt’s reporting shows, the technology to use biofuels on ships is largely ready. The open question is whether enough biomass can be produced, to the right standard, fast enough to meet the demand that regulation is creating.

Shipping is a demanding buyer. These companies are used to fuel contracts where the specs are exact and delivery is on time, every time. They will hold biofuel feedstock suppliers to the same standard. The producers who can show they meet it, backed by data across multiple seasons, will be the ones winning those contracts as demand grows over the next five years.

Sean M. Holt’s full article, “Winning Formula: Power, Fuel, and Flexibility in Maritime Decarbonisation” was published in The Maritime Executive (January/February 2026). Sean serves as President of International at Phi Earth.