Why Does Energy Security Directly Concern Shipping?

Shipping is a critical part of the global energy system. Oil, LNG, LPG, raw materials, equipment and energy products move through sea routes that are exposed to armed conflicts, geopolitical tensions, restrictions on passage, and climate-related or technical disruptions.

The discussion highlighted that points such as the Suez Canal, the Strait of Malacca, the Red Sea, the Black Sea and other critical routes function as potential bottlenecks. A disruption in one of these passages does not affect shipping alone; it affects energy prices, insurance premiums, freight rates, cargo delivery times and, ultimately, the stability of supply chains.

Energy security, therefore, is not only about the availability of fuels. It also concerns the ability of a country, an economy or a supply chain to secure the necessary energy products, in the required quantities, at predictable cost and with resilience against external shocks.

From this perspective, the transition to more diversified fuel chains can also function as a tool of strategic resilience. The more diversified the sources of production, technologies and bunkering hubs are, the more difficult it becomes for maritime energy to be used as an instrument of geopolitical pressure.

Where Does the Transition to Alternative Fuels Stand Today?

The discussion showed that the market has already begun to adapt. New orderbooks show a significant increase in vessels capable of using alternative fuels. According to the data presented, while in 2020 alternative fuel-capable ships accounted for a small share of new orders, they now exceed 50% in certain major vessel categories.

This development is important, but it is not sufficient. The existence of vessels that can use alternative fuels does not mean that those fuels are available, economically competitive or supported by adequate infrastructure.

The core issue is now shifting from the vessel to the fuel. Ordering a ship that can use methanol, ammonia or another alternative fuel is only one part of the equation. The critical question is whether there will be sufficient production, certification, storage, safe transportation and bunkering capacity at the ports serving major shipping routes.

At the same time, the economic gap remains significant. Green or low-carbon fuels still carry a higher cost compared with conventional fuels. No single mechanism — whether regulation, carbon pricing, financing or subsidies — is sufficient on its own to close this gap. A combination of tools, gradual market maturity and a clear investment framework are required.

Is There One Fuel That Will Solve the Problem?

The answer emerging from the discussion is negative. Shipping will not transition to a single universal fuel. There is no one solution that can cover all vessel categories, all routes and all business models in the same way.

Deep-sea shipping, coastal ferry services, tankers, gas carriers, containerships and short sea shipping all have different needs. The choice of fuel depends on the route, cargo, vessel size, voyage duration, infrastructure availability, fuel cost and regulatory requirements.

The discussion referred to solutions such as LNG, biofuels, methanol, ammonia, hydrogen and e-fuels. At the same time, the technical, economic and energy-related challenges accompanying each option were highlighted. For example, the production of green hydrogen or green ammonia requires very large quantities of clean electricity, while biofuels face constraints in terms of availability and cost.

The transition, therefore, will be gradual and multidirectional. In this context, energy efficiency solutions become particularly important. Speed reduction, hull improvements, energy-saving devices, route optimisation and better operational management can immediately reduce fuel consumption and emissions, without requiring the full maturity of new fuels.

How Does Regulation Affect Investment Decisions?

Regulation is a necessary tool for the transition, but when it is unclear or unrealistic it can lead to delayed investment.

The seminar discussed international and European regulatory developments, particularly in relation to the IMO framework, the reduction of greenhouse gas emission intensity and carbon pricing. One key point was that shipowners and investors need greater predictability in order to assume the cost of new technologies, retrofits or new vessel orders.

When it is not clear what the final carbon price will be, what penalties will apply, which fuels will be considered compliant and which technologies will prevail, investment is often delayed. Uncertainty does not accelerate the transition; in many cases, it suspends it.

This does not mean that regulation is unnecessary. It means that regulation must be applicable, technically sound and economically understandable. Shipping is a sector of long-term investments. A vessel is not designed with a horizon of a few years, but of decades. Therefore, today’s regulatory decisions affect investment for a long period of time.

Why Are Ports and Bunkering Hubs the Next Critical Field?

The transition to new fuels will not be decided only on board vessels. It will be decided equally in ports and bunkering infrastructure.

Alternative fuels require different systems for storage, separation, handling and safety. Methanol, ammonia, hydrogen and e-fuels cannot simply be integrated into the existing bunkering system without new specifications. They require tanks, separate storage, special permits, safety zones, emergency response plans, specialised personnel and clear last-mile delivery procedures to the vessel.

The seminar also highlighted that today’s bunkering market is concentrated in a limited number of major hubs. The new fuel market will create a new geography. Not every port needs to become a hub for all fuels. What is needed, however, is the strategic selection of specific hubs, based on demand, location, routes, safety, energy infrastructure and the ability to attract investment.

Greece lies on critical Mediterranean routes. This creates prospects, but not automatically. Strategic planning is required to determine which ports can acquire a role in the new energy architecture of shipping, and how this connects with coastal ferry services, short sea shipping and the country’s broader energy policy.

What Is the Greek Dimension?

For Greece, the discussion is particularly important for three reasons.

First, Greek shipping has international weight and is directly affected by global regulatory, energy and financing developments.

Second, Greece has a geographic position that places it on critical energy and maritime flows in the Mediterranean.

Third, the country has an extensive coastal ferry network and a strong island dimension. The green transition of coastal ferry services is not only an environmental issue. It is a matter of social cohesion, connectivity, transport costs, regional development and energy resilience.

Coastal ferry services and short sea shipping can serve as fields for pilot applications. Routes are more specific, bunkering needs can be mapped with greater precision and the impact on local communities is direct.

This does not reduce the difficulty of the undertaking. On the contrary, it requires financing, port infrastructure, technical planning, trained teams, institutional cooperation and a realistic timetable.