The European Union’s climate strategy aims to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 55 % by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. Within this framework, the FuelEU Maritime Regulation introduces progressively stricter limits on the GHG intensity of energy used by ships, driving a transition toward renewable marine fuels. This place ports in a central role within the energy transition, as bunkering locations but also as nodes for fuel production, import, storage, and distribution. Hydrogen and hydrogen-based fuels such as e-methanol and e-ammonia are emerging as key alternatives to conventional marine fuels, offering significant emission reduction potential. Given its scale, existing infrastructure, and industrial integration, the Port of Gothenburg is well positioned to become a hub for hydrogen-based and renewable marine fuels, particularly as a large share of Sweden’s marine fuel bunkering takes place in or around the port.
This study, conducted within the H2AMN project, assesses the potential for the Port of Gothenburg to develop into a large-scale hub for renewable marine fuels toward 2030 and 2050. The analysis compares local production of hydrogen and e-fuels with import-based supply pathways, considering production costs, transport logistics, infrastructure requirements, and future fuel demand scenarios. Different fuel mix pathways fulfilling the emission reduction requirements of the FuelEU Maritime Regulation are evaluated, with particular attention to implications for cost, supply potential, infrastructure development, and system flexibility.
The assessment indicates that all modelled scenarios are technically and economically feasible by 2030, as no major shifts in fuel types or infrastructure are required in the near term and planned production of renewable fuels appears sufficient to meet expected demand. By 2050, however, the outlook becomes more uncertain as stricter FuelEU Maritime targets significantly increase renewable fuel demand. Under these conditions, a mixed fuel scenario, combining the use of biofuels, hydrogen-based fuels and natural gas, emerges as the most realistic pathway based on the evaluated assumptions from both a supply and infrastructure perspective, as single-fuel strategies are exposed to limitations in production capacity, infrastructure availability, and technology deployment. The analysis highlights that uncertainty in the realisation of planned fuel production constitutes a key risk. Even if all currently planned Swedish production of biomethanol, e-methanol, and e-ammonia is realised, it would be insufficient to meet the estimated large-scale bunkering demand for these fuels in the Gothenburg area by 2050. A diversified fuel supply strategy therefore becomes essential, as maintaining flexibility across multiple fuel pathways reduces lock-ins and uncertainties related to technology development, policy evolution, fuel costs, and infrastructure investment. While a fuel mix scenario increases operational complexity through the need for multiple storage, handling, and safety systems, it offers greater robustness in achieving long-term GHG emission reduction goals. Among the alternative fuels assessed, e-methanol emerges as the most practical near-term option, supported by existing engine technologies, relative compatibility with current port infrastructure and high maturity. Its flexibility between fossil, biogenic, and renewable production pathways reduces supply risks and supports a gradual transition. Liquefied biomethane also shows strong potential due to its high energy density, potentially low emission factor and compatibility with existing LNG engines, although physical large-scale deployment is constrained by the need for dedicated infrastructure. This also applies mainly to liquefied e-methane, which is not, however, explicitly analysed in this study.
From a production perspective, local hydrogen production in Gothenburg is found to be more cost-efficient than sourcing from e.g., northern Sweden under current electricity price conditions, while procuring e-methanol and e-ammonia from northern Sweden or other regions with low electricity prices may be more economical than local production. Meeting potential future bunkering demand in 2050, given continued large-scale bunkering in the area, with domestically produced fuels would require a significant increase in Swedish production of these renewable fuels, highlighting the opportunity for establishing new fuel production. Even with local production, the Port of Gothenburg is likely to become a net importer of fuels as e.g., e-methanol, biomethanol, and e-ammonia due to limitations in domestic production capacity. Beyond fuel supply, local e-fuel production can provide important system-level benefits, including the generation of co-products such as waste heat for district heating and oxygen for industrial use, as well as opportunities to support electricity grid balancing and overall energy system resilience. In summary, with a mixed fuel approach that combines local production with sourcing of renewable fuels from other regions, the Port of Gothenburg may potentially develop into a central hub for hydrogen-based and renewable marine fuels strengthening its role within the regional and international energy system.