Full Charge ahead : Investigating the potential to electrify…

Downloads

Report

Executive summary

Ferries make up a vital part of the EU’s transport system, transporting goods and people, and offering lifeline services to remote regions. Yet, the sector's aging fleet of almost 2000 ships spends over 60% of their time within 5 nautical miles of densely populated port areas, contributing significantly to coastal air pollution and causing 15.3 Mt GHG emissions. While many oceangoing ships will have to rely on sustainable fuels, the smaller size of ferries and their predictable routes mean that electrification will offer a competitive alternative:

52% of existing ferries could rely on battery-electric propulsion by 2035
For 20%, this switch could be cheaper than fossil fuels already in 2025
Conventional ferries cause between 15 times and over 100 times more air pollution near major coastal cities like Dublin, Belfast, Piraeus, or Las Palmas than those cities’ passenger cars
Requirements for charging infrastructure are the main barrier to adoption, though 57% of ports will require only smaller chargers below 5 MW for a demand of below 5 GWh

Even more battery-powered ferries could already be competitive. Currently, only electricity is subject to national taxes.

The ferry sector has been largely ignored by many of the EU’s industrial strategies and environmental regulation. At the same time, it is often dependent on public support on the national and regional level. By addressing key barriers and strategically targeting regulatory disadvantages, Europe's aging ferry fleet can become a trailblazer and industrial accelerant by becoming the lead maritime sector for the uptake of made-in-EU marine batteries and electric vessels.T&E identified key initiatives that the EU can take to support this transition and secure industrial demand for marine batteries:

Extend the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and FuelEU Maritime Regulation (FEUM) to cover all vessels equal or larger than 400 gross tonnage (GT) to cover the largest share of ferry routes, driving at least 8% additional electrification.
Expand the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) beyond shore power mandates to ensure sufficient charging infrastructure in major ferry ports.
Revise EU public procurement and tendering rules to ensure sustainable use of public resources in public procurement procedures, including through zero-emission standards, and favoring made-in-Europe components.
Integrate marine battery production into the strategic goal to improve battery production capacity, including through the EU Industrial Maritime Strategy.

Even under existing regulations, national and regional governments can already use tools to incentivise or directly require electrification of key routes:

Utilise the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) and Green Public Procurement (GPP) methodologies to include zero-emission qualification criteria in national, and local procurement policy. This is already done by some member states like Denmark, or Spain.
Reduce national energy taxes on electricity supplied to vessels or reduce port fees for zero-emission ferries through temporal options available in the Energy Taxation Directive.
Expand Emission Control Areas (ECAs) to outermost regions and end route-specific exemptions.

The EU is home to one of the world’s largest ferry sectors, with over 904 Ro-Pax vessels and 1012 passenger ships making up 26% and 22% of the world’s fleets, respectively. This fleet transports people, vehicles and goods between Europe’s ports, often directly into the hearts of tourist locations, industrial hubs and dense urban areas.

Ferries form a critical part of Europe’s transport network, linking islands and peripheral regions to the mainland, and transporting around 400 million passengers annually. But passenger and Ro-Pax represent an important share of EU shipping emissions. As all segments of maritime transport need to address their emissions, ferries are no exceptions.

In this report, we first estimate the GHG emissions and air pollution in ports stemming from ferries. We then offer a techno-economic analysis of the potential for electrification to drastically reduce these said emissions, and discuss the policies and incentives that are needed.

Fleet characteristics

While ferries are a vital link for both mobility and trade within the Union, the fleet is also one of the oldest shipping segments. The average Ro-Pax vessel is 26 years old, and almost one quarter of EU-flagged ferries are over 30 years old. These ships are often kept in service through retrofits rather than being replaced.

Age and design vary significantly by region. In the Mediterranean, ferries tend to be larger, older, and experience seasonal demand peaks. A plurality of the routes we studied are located in the Mediterranean Sea, and ferries in the region transport the most passengers of all the regions studied. In contrast, Baltic and North Sea ferries are generally younger, operate shorter, high-frequency routes, and have been subject to stricter environmental rules for a longer time than Mediterranean ferries, as a result of the sulphur dioxide (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) Emission Control Areas.

In terms of propulsion, ferries operate with ICE and diesel for the vast majority of vessels, with a small share using LNG as well. Diesel-electric vessels still use fossil fuels for propulsion, but use the fuel to power a generator producing electricity that is then used to power the electric motors.

Hybrid vessels represent 7% of the European fleet, with battery-electric ships representing an additional 2%. While a nascent trend, vessels servicing European routes feature a large share of the global electric fleet, backed up by established shipbuilding expertise.

While Ro-Pax ferries are the most represented ships in the sector, it is made up of many diverse ship types. More modern “fast ferries”, though few in numbers, cause comparatively high emissions due to their high speeds and high fuel consumption. On the other hand, smaller passenger-only ferries, often serving urban or island connections, are increasingly at the forefront of electrification, particularly in Northern Europe.

Geographical distribution

Geographically, most ferry services are domestic or intra-EU, and are concentrated in three regions: the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, and the Mediterranean. More than half of all routes operate in the Mediterranean, which also hosts the largest and oldest ferries. The majority of routes connect large Mediterranean islands, such as Corsica, Sardinia and the Balearic islands to their respective home countries. A few routes also connect countries to one another: notably, ferries connect Civitavecchia in Italy to Barcelona in Spain, and Igoumenista in Greece to Ancona in Italy. In the Baltic Sea, ferries sail on North-South routes to connect Scandinavian countries to Germany and Poland on the one hand. On the other, East-West routes connect Germany to the Baltics and Finland. In the North Sea, ferries connect Ireland and the UK to France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Environmental significance

The environmental footprint of the ferry fleet is significant: In 2023, passenger and Ro-Pax ships accounted for 16.5% of all EU shipping CO₂ emissions reported in the EU MRV system. This figure excludes vessels under 5000 GT, which make up a large part of the fleet but are missing from official statistics. In addition, ferries are a major source of air pollution, emitting sulphur dioxide (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM) and black carbon (BC). Given their frequent operation in urban port areas, these emissions have direct negative health impacts on local populations.

Regulation

Short- and mid-range passenger and Ro-Pax vessels are subject to overlapping regulatory frameworks. When sailing across borders, specific regulation by the EU as well as the global regulations of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) apply.

Global/IMO level

Internationally, the MARPOL convention - regulating pollution from fuel use, sewage, garbage and air emissions - requires ships above 400 GT to comply with regulations to promote efficient ships (EEXI & EEDI), while those above 5000 GT must report their fuel use under the IMO Data Collection System (DCS) and comply with the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII). Additionally, ferries operating in Emission Control Areas such as the Baltic Sea, the Channel, the North Sea and from 2025 the Mediterranean Sea must meet tighter SOx and NOx limits.

Importantly, IMO regulations apply to ships engaged in international voyages, in parallel to national rules applying at the various ports of call, and to the regulation of the national flag they are registered with. This hierarchy of regulation is established in the UN UNCLOS treaty, and recognised in IMO SOLAS and MARPOL conventions.

While many European ferries operate on purely domestic routes and are therefore outside the scope of several IMO measures, falling instead under EU and national regulation, the EU has transposed (parts of) the global framework into binding law (e.g. Sulphur Directive, Port State Control Directive, or Flag State Control Directive), ensuring consistent enforcement across Member States.

EU level

At the EU level, ferries are subject to the same overarching climate and environmental legislation as other passenger ships. This comprehensive regulatory framework incentivises investments in zero-emission technology and electrification, as compliance would bring both FuelEU compliance benefits and Emissions Trading System (ETS) cost savings.

The Fuel EU Maritime Regulation (FEUM) aims to stimulate the uptake of low- and zero-emission propulsion (including electrification) by requiring ships equal or above 5000 GT to progressively reduce the GHG intensity of the energy used onboard. However, some passenger vessels currently benefit from a set of exemptions until 31 December 2029, for domestic voyages to islands of under 200,000 inhabitants, voyages between outermost regions, transnational public service routes for Member States (MS) without a land border, or for pre-2023 public service island connections (including the Spanish exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla). Beyond carbon-intensity targets, FEUM also mandates large ferries to connect to on-shore power when at berth from 2030.

In parallel, the ETS requires shipping companies to surrender emission allowances based on the ETS scope (i.e. 100% of emissions from intra-EEA voyages, 100% of emissions happening in EEA ports and 50% from voyages between EEA and non-EEA ports) for passenger ships, including ferries above 5000 GT since 2024. As with FEUM, exemptions apply until 31 December 2030 for passenger (excluding cruise ships) and Ro-Pax ferries operating on specific island routes (in the same jurisdiction, without a road/rail link, and under 200,000 inhabitants), operating on transnational public service routes (currently only between Cyprus and Greece), and for voyages to and between outermost region ports of the same MS. Additionally, vessels with ice class IA, IA Super or equivalent are allowed to surrender 5% fewer allowances than their verified emissions.

In addition, the UK is exploring extending international coverage of its own ETS to the maritime sector, which will follow the same parameters as the EU ETS. Companies will have to surrender allowances for emissions from ferries above 5000 GT starting from July 2026. As the text states for now, the UK ETS will only cover emissions at-port and between UK ports, and will exempt only non-commercial government vessels from its coverage.

Recognising the substantial emissions that ships cause in port, the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) mirrors FEUM and introduces a mandate for maritime ports to provide onshore power supply (OPS) to passenger ships (and container vessels) equal or above 5000 GT by 2030. The mandate applies only for ports that have a sufficient number of annual port calls per ship type (e.g. for ferries, 40) and MS should ensure that enough charging points are available to cover the electrical energy needs of at least 90% of these port calls. Exemptions similar to those detailed for FEUM also apply.

Beyond their GHG emissions, ferries are covered by rules limiting air pollution, embedded in EU legislation (e.g. Sulphur Directive). Additionally, services are subject to EU rules on passenger rights, while access to domestic markets was liberalised in EU “Cabotage” regulation (3577/92/EC). Where essential transport to remote regions requires support, public service obligations and state aid control laws apply.

National level

In addition to this harmonised EU framework, the regulation of ferries also takes place at the national and regional level, and reflects the public service role of many routes. The ferry sector is deeply intertwined with public transport systems and regional connectivity.

The EU’s cabotage regulation substantially liberalised the ferry sector, allowing member state-registered vessels to service routes independent of national borders. Where ferries provide crucial public transport functions, but operations are not economically viable, they are often operated with public support or under public ownership. While general state aid restrictions and public procurement directives (2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC) apply, national or regional cabotage laws also define how public support is provided. This support ranges from publicly funded Public Service Contracts, to Public Service Obligations to direct state ownership of individual ferries. National and regional governments thus have significant leeway in assigning requirements through public tenders and procurement.

As a result, the level of public involvement varies significantly between regions: in the Baltic and North Sea, many ferry routes are commercially viable and operate under market conditions, with specific routes being operated with strong state involvement. Additional requirements are often applied, including environmental standards under existing state aid rules. These requirements have accelerated the uptake of efficient vessels, more competitive pricing, and most recently led to the introduction of some hybrid and fully electric ferries on shorter routes.

By contrast, in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, many ferry connections are still operated with direct state subsidies, under concession contracts, or regulated tariffs, with less stringent or no environmental requirements. Compared to commercially operated and competitive routes, older vessels remain in service, as is the case for island services in Greece, Italy, Spain, France, and Portugal.

This patchwork of national approaches means that ferries face uneven regulatory pressure across Europe. This has implications for both investment decisions and the speed of fleet renewal. A salient example is Norway’s regulation on cabotage that, combined with sustainable provisions in public support and additional environmental obligations, has led to a significantly more modern ferry fleet with a large share of vessels that utilise electrification or alternative fuels. EU law permits similar environmental requirements under the MEAT principles (most economically advantageous tender) of public procurement rules, though environmental requirements are optional.

An example of successful national regulation beyond EU standards is the transposition into national law of the OSPAR convention. Under it, eleven EU member states, Norway, the UK, Switzerland, and Luxembourg as well as the EU agreed to ban discharge of waste water from Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (EGCSs), or “scrubbers” near coasts and ports of the north-east Atlantic.

Methodology overview

We used a bottom-up model to calculate 2023 traffic and tank-to-wake (TtW) energy and emissions for each ferry above 400 gross tons (GT) operating in Europe, based on AIS data and individual ship technical specifications. We included all trips within, to or from the EEA and the UK. We included the voyages of hybrid ferries but we discounted their potential emissions, as they cannot be predicted reliably without battery usage statistics. The analysis covers GHGs and air pollutants, including CO₂, CH4, N2O, black carbon (BC), SOx, NOX and PM2.5. We compared ferry air pollution within 5 nm of each port to that from cars registered in the respective cities. Emission factors follow the IMO Fourth Greenhouse Gas Study, and fuel use assumptions reflect real-world compliance with sulphur standards. The full methodology can be found in Annex 1.

Total traffic and GHG emissions

We find that 1043 European ferries emitted 15.3 Mt CO₂e in 2023, with 88% from CO₂ and 9% from black carbon, an extremely potent global warming agent made up of particles from incomplete combustion.

We identify 2.6 million voyages over the year, 80% of which were made by ferries between 400 and 5000 GT. Despite this, ferries over 5000 GT account for 88% of total emissions. As a result, 12% of ferry emissions are exempt from the EU ETS due to their small vessels’ size, which currently applies only to ships above 5000 GT.

Route-level traffic and GHG emissions

Top routes in terms of CO₂ emissions include long-distance, low frequency crossings, short high-frequency crossings and everything in between, highlighting the diversity of the ferry sector. The most polluting routes are the Baltic crossing between Helsinki and Travemünde, despite only 700 voyages, and the short Calais-Dover crossing, with over 24,000 crossings per year. Three of the top five most CO₂-emitting routes are under 100 nautical miles (nm), and 6 out of top 10 routes exceed this threshold.

Country-level traffic and GHG emissions

The Mediterranean Sea has the highest CO₂ emissions from ferries, with domestic routes in Italy, Spain and Greece being the highest emitting in absolute terms. Emissions in Scandinavian countries are more evenly distributed, with domestic Norwegian routes being the largest emitters. In the Baltic Sea, connections between Sweden and Poland, Germany and Finland are among the highest emitting ones. Overall, emissions in Northern Europe appear to be more heavily weighted towards international connections, whereas emissions in the Mediterranean are more concentrated on domestic routes.

The table below presents the top 10 European countries by voyage-based CO₂ emissions (full ranking in Annex 2), with emissions split equally between departure and arrival countries. Italy leads in terms of emissions with 2.4 Mt CO₂, followed by Spain and Greece; together these three account for 5.7 Mt CO₂. Italy's emissions stem primarily from domestic traffic and port stays (75%). France and the UK’s emissions are predominantly from international crossings (53% and 49% respectively). Conversely, Greece exhibits a high domestic concentration, with 82% of ferry CO₂ attributed to national services. Norway, despite accounting for nearly 1.2 million voyages, has relatively low emissions due to shorter routes and smaller vessels; notably, international voyages comprise under 1% of trips yet generate one-third of its emissions due to the large size of international ferries.

Port-level traffic and GHG emissions

Splitting CO₂ emissions between both ports of a voyage, we present a similar ranking for the top 10 ports in terms of CO₂ emissions, with the full top 50 ranking available in Annex 2. Mediterranean ports dominate with 7 of the top 10 positions. Barcelona has the highest level of CO₂ emissions, though the top 5 ports, from 5 different countries, are closely matched. Consistent with national patterns, Barcelona is served by fewer, longer trips while Piraeus operates more frequent, shorter crossings, with the average distance for voyages arriving in Barcelona being almost three times as long as the voyages arriving to Piraeus. Genova and Marseille also rank in the top spots despite comparatively few voyages.

Total air pollution near European ports

We find that ferries collectively spent close to 5 million hours sailing or moored less than 5 nautical miles from European ports in 2023, emitting 6848 tonnes of SOx, 64,486 tonnes of NOx and 2367 tonnes of PM2.5. This represents 60% of the vessels’ year, highlighting the concentration of air pollution from ferries near populated coastal areas.

Port-level air pollution

Due to the growing expansion of Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs), air pollution in ports is expected to trend downwards in future years. On 1 May 2025, the Mediterranean Emission Control Area (ECA) was implemented, mandating a maximum sulphur content of 0.1% in fuels used by ships sailing in the Mediterranean Sea. The North Atlantic ECA, which covers part of the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of Spain, Portugal, France, the UK, Ireland and Iceland, will introduce similar requirements, in addition to a limit on Nitrogen Oxide emissions. Originally planned to enter into force in 2027, its adoption at the IMO was delayed by approximately six months. We modelled air pollution in European ports based on three scenarios across three points in time: Without either ECA (2023), with the Mediterranean ECA only (2025), and including both the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic ECA (2027).

In 2023, Algeciras and Piraeus were the most polluted ports, while four Italian ports were among the top ten. By 2025, all Italian ports drop from the top ten, replaced by four ports in the UK and Ireland not covered by any SECA, with Dublin being the most polluted port. As the North-East Atlantic ECA enters into force in 2027, we anticipate that ports in the Canary Islands will become the most polluted in Europe, due to not being covered by any ECAs, indicating that the most polluted ports are systematically outside SECAs. Unsurprisingly, other top polluted ports are those featuring the most activity.

In 2025, Dublin, Las Palmas and Holyhead are projected to be the most polluted ports, with between 92 and 80 tonnes of SOx emitted. In port cities where car registration data is available, ferry SOx emissions exceed those from local car fleets by over a factor of 10 for large cities like Dublin and Piraeus. This stark imbalance highlights the disproportionate air pollution impact of ferries, especially in high-traffic port cities and limited emission controls. Even enhanced maximum sulphur limits of 0.1% are 100 times less stringent for ships than they are for cars.

Similarly to other shipping segments, ferries need to reduce their GHG emissions. This can happen by integrating energy efficiency measures (e.g. wind-assist propulsion), connecting to shore side electricity (OPS) and alternative energy sources. However, the ferry sector occupies a unique position: unlike long-haul merchant shipping, ferries have very different characteristics, such as their shorter routes, predictable schedules and smaller vessel sizes, that invite a separate evaluation of zero-emission technologies. The main objective of this analysis is to investigate the technical and economic feasibility of different alternative zero-emission fuels and battery technology in European ferry operations.

Methodology overview

We assessed the potential of the following propulsion technologies and fuels to decarbonise the European ferry fleet:

Battery-electric
Hybrid-electric
E-hydrogen (LH2)
E-methanol
E-ammonia
HVO biofuel

We selected ships eligible for each technology considering operational patterns, number of ports served and voyage frequency, with stricter criteria for battery-electric ferries to ensure charging feasibility. For each option, we assessed the technical feasibility of every ship in the fleet and compared its total cost of ownership (TCO) of a conventional ferry running on a FuelEU-compliant fuel mix. We evaluate ferries’ technical feasibility first: for ferries that can operate on their most critical route with batteries, we then compare the CAPEX and lifetime operational costs of a battery-electric vessel to a diesel-powered one.

We modelled newbuild ferries built in 2025, 2030 and 2035, assuming a 30-year vessel lifetime. We defined a “most critical” representative route for each vessel based on voyage share and distance, and used it to size batteries or fuel storage. We conservatively assumed the same operational characteristics and no additional space required for alternative-propulsion systems. We derived battery characteristics from industry sources and adjusted to forecast conservative future technology developments. For alternative fuels, we accounted for lower energy densities and higher CAPEX for engines or fuel cells. Given the long time horizon considered and current trends and expectations, we assumed fossil fuel prices would return to pre-COVID levels, while electricity prices would stay at their current level. We also analysed the impact of electricity taxes on the overall results as these significantly affect TCO and several European countries have already reduced taxes on shore power. We used prices from DNV for e-fuels and Stratas Advisors for biofuels. Finally, we assumed that ships of more than 400 GT would be included in the ETS and FuelEU maritime from 2030 onwards.

The full methodology is detailed in Annex 1.

Assessment of battery-electric ferries

Ship selection

Out of the 1043 ferries in the current fleet, 904 run on conventional fuels and have sufficient data to include them in the TCO analysis. These formed the basis of our analysis. To control for heterogeneous schedules and potential differences in infrastructure availability, we limited eligibility to ferries visiting a small number of ports. We defined this as ships visiting less than ten ports across 95% of their distance sailed. This conservatively classifies 70 ferries as not electrifiable, despite them showing potential if all their ports were to install the necessary charging infrastructure. In the rest of this section these ferries are classified as “not feasible or cost-effective” although their TCO wasn’t calculated. This creates a sample of 834 ferries that can potentially be electrified.

Fleet technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness

We find that already today, 20% of European ferries would be cheaper as battery-electric newbuilds than as conventional ones, with an additional 28% of ferries technically feasible but not cost-effective. Removing taxes on shore-side electricity increases the estimated share of cost-competitive electrification to 27% of the fleet. Given the conservative assumptions made regarding battery characteristics (i.e. C rates, energy densities and prices) and operational constraints (i.e. no increase in port stop durations), the true technological electrification potential of electric ferries is likely even higher, if the necessary charging infrastructure can be installed at ports. Alternative options such as redesigning vessels, operating different schedules or technologies like battery swapping could further drive up electrification potential.

In 2035, economic feasibility is expected to rise to 52% for newbuilds thanks to improvements in battery technology and higher predicted ETS prices, among other factors, with an additional 8% technically feasible only. Without electricity taxes, the share of economically-feasible ferries would increase by 2 percentage points to 54%. These numbers show the high potential for batteries to decarbonise the ferry fleet while saving costs, with the effect most pronounced in 2025, where cost-competitiveness is a major barrier. In contrast, in 2030 and 2035 electrification is usually competitive wherever it is technically feasible. The share of ferries that are only technically feasible shrinks in 2030 and 2035, as the business case for battery-electric ferries strongly improves.

Technical feasibility analysis

In 2025, an estimated 48% of newbuild ferries could technically operate as fully battery-electric. Looking closer at the remaining barriers to technical electrification feasibility, charging requirements clearly appear as the most critical barrier: either insufficient energy is delivered due to the charging connections being undersized, or the battery is unable to charge fast enough. Battery charging speed (known as C-rate) is the excluding factor for 22% of the fleet, with many ferries having turnaround times that are too short to recharge. For these vessels, although OPS connections can deliver sufficient energy while they are at berth, the technical specifications of their batteries preclude them from being recharged at sufficient speeds. On the other hand, and with some overlap, undersized shore-side chargers exclude 25% of the fleet. In this case, the charger lacks sufficient power to charge the battery. For most ferries, battery-related constraints will be easier to solve than shore charging constraints, thanks to the rapid expected improvements in battery technology. By 2035, only 10% of newbuilds would be disqualified by battery charging power requirements if we assume a doubling of the C-rating. On the other hand, increasing the available power of shore-charging ports will require investments to deploy the required infrastructures.

Battery volume and weight are less critical and mostly concern ships which can’t fulfill charging requirements regardless. 12% of vessels are not technically feasible due to the excess weight of batteries. Assuming that the battery system could take up an additional 10% of each ship’s available space by separating it into multiple modules, volume is a limiting factor for 0% of vessels. Finally, batteries’ continuous peak power output doesn’t appear to be a concern: selecting a Depth of Discharge (DoD) between 40% and 80% gives sufficient capacity to meet required maximum power output for 99% of vessels. Thus, battery energy capacity and power appear to be sufficient to meet voyage requirements.

Technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness by country

While an estimated total of 20% of sampled ferries could be cost-effectively replaced by electric newbuilds in 2025 - rising to 52% in 2035 - results vary widely between countries, mainly due to differences in voyage patterns and electricity prices. Among the main ferry countries, Spain and Greece have the highest estimated shares of cost-effective electric ferries in 2025, with 34% and 33% respectively.

Conversely, none of the analysed vessels in the UK appear to be cost-effective with batteries, while other key maritime countries such as Italy (10%) and France (11%) fall in between. This is due to higher electricity prices in the UK, penalising battery-electric propulsion. Furthermore, vessels in the UK are not subject to FuelEU-type carbon-intensity targets and the UK ETS alone (which is assumed to take effect in 2026) will not sufficiently close the TCO gap between battery-electric and diesel-based operations. Removing electricity taxes naturally improves electric ferries’ competitiveness, with notable improvements in Germany (+7%), Sweden (+10%) and Italy (+18%).

For 2025, Norway’s estimated potential for cost-effective electric ferries (at 17%) sharply contrasts with Norway already having the highest share of electric and hybrid ferries in Europe. Those vessels are removed from the sample and are not included in the results presented above. In consequence our results exhibit a bias as we only examine the remaining vessels that are not already electrified, and are therefore less likely to be electrifiable. In our model, we estimate low technical feasibility due to short stops of Norwegian ferries and related high required C-rates. 102 of the 131 ferries with a representative route in Norway have stops of 20 minutes or less and 81 of those are marked as not technically feasible because of difficulties to charge the battery fast enough. By 2035, for which C-rates are assumed to be twice those of 2025, an estimated 42% of ferries are estimated to be cost-competitive, marking the significant impact of overcoming this barrier.

For 2035, the main ferry countries with the highest share of cost-effective newbuilds are Italy (67%), Greece (66%) and Spain (59%). France and the UK remain at the bottom in terms of estimated economic feasibility: only 20% of ferries in France, and still 0% in the UK. For France, the main barrier to technical feasibility is insufficient power in ports. Moreover, ferries operating between France and the UK must also contend with high electricity costs.

Cost and CO2 savings

We estimate substantial cost savings from electric ships, even with electricity taxes. Cost-effective 2025 newbuilds could save 14% in energy and ETS costs over their lifetime, for a total of €684 million over the whole electrifiable fleet. 2035 newbuilds could save 32% in energy and ETS costs, for a total of €6.4 billion over the whole electrifiable fleet. Lifetime CO₂ savings from electrification could be 8% of total fleet CO₂ in 2025, increasing to 24% in 2035. Cost-savings do not scale parallel to the share of cost-effective electric ships because smaller ships tend to be more easily electrifiable.

For cost-effective electric ferries, TCO breakeven is reached quickly, especially for ships built after 2030. This shows the importance of energy costs in the business case and how profitable electric ferries could be if ferry operators can access cheap(er) electricity. Even the estimated 2025 newbuilds reach breakeven within two thirds of the typical ferry lifetime. In contrast, fossil- powered newbuilds face higher fuel prices over the ships’ lifetime.

Sensitivity analysis for cost-competitive battery-electric ferries

Battery adoption depends mainly on electricity and fuel prices. Our sensitivity analysis in 2025 shows that a 25% increase in electricity prices reduces battery feasibility by about 10 percentage points (pp), while a 25% decrease in electricity prices increases battery feasibility by 11 pp. Policy exemptions would impact adoption significantly: excluding small ferries (under 5000 GT) from FuelEU targets reduces battery uptake by 8 pp, while a similar ETS exemption reduces it by 8 pp. Removing electricity taxes increases adoption by 7 pp. The discount rate has moderate effects with a 3 pp reduction leading to a 8 pp increase, and a similar increase leading to a 7 pp reduction in feasibility. A decrease in the cost of the FuelEU-compliant fuel mix by 25% leads to a reduction by 13 pp of battery feasibility, while an increase by 25% leads to an increase by 12 pp of the feasibility rate. Battery prices and charging rates (C-rating) have smaller impacts of 2-3 pp.

By 2035, the relevance of electricity prices and consumption decreases. In 2035, a 25% increase in electricity prices reduces battery feasibility by only 7 pp, while a 25% decrease improves it by 2 pp. Likewise, a 25% reduction in the FuelEU-compliant fuel mix cost leads to a fall of 12 pp in feasibility. Finally, FUEM remains a key parameter. Not including small ferries (over 400GT) in the fuel standard would lead to a reduction in feasibility from 52% to 36%.

Port electric power requirements

We analysed the additional electric power and energy needs faced by ports to support charging infrastructure planning. For the 474 cost-effective electric newbuilds in 2035, total yearly energy demand is 5.4 TWh. Around 68% of this, i.e. 3.7 TWh is consumed on the representative routes we assessed. 57% of ports will only need to provide chargers below 5 MW and less than 5 GWh of electricity per year. The additional power needs would not be trivial, but is much lower than T&E’s estimated power demand due to the AFIR regulation, which will amount to more than 5.3 TWh in major ports alone.

A small number of ports dominate total demand: by 2035, the ten highest-consumption ports could account for a quarter of all energy demand from ferries, if all technically feasible vessels were electrified. Dover (379 GWh) and Calais (284 GWh) alone represent 14% of the total, despite serving only a total of 12 ferries combined. Those are relatively large ferries crossing the Channel several times a day – a unique configuration, since ferries performing several voyages a day elsewhere tend to be small vessels. Several other high-throughput ports: Algeciras, Swinoujscie, Napoli, Palermo, and Piraeus, also exceed 130 GWh per year in electricity demand.

The table below presents the estimated peak charger capacity needed for each port and their energy consumption for 2035.

Due to tight turnaround times, estimated peak charger capacity needs do not always follow annual energy demand. For example, island ports such as Santa Cruz de la Palma (16 MW) or Heraklion (14 MW) require high-power connections despite relatively low yearly usage. This underscores the importance of efficient berth scheduling to avoid potentially costly grid reinforcements.

As expected from earlier traffic results, demand is highly concentrated in cross-Channel and Baltic routes and in Mediterranean ferry hubs. Targeted regional infrastructure planning should thus deliver most benefits while avoiding over-investment around low-use ports.

Improvement in battery parameters

For the base scenario and a start date of 2030, our optimisation model shows that up to 43% of vessels could be technically and economically feasible in 2030, with an additional 14% technically feasible only. In the table below, we present the base scenario, and the results for maximising feasibility obtained when increasing one variable from the values of 339 Wh/L (volumetric energy density), 225 Wh/kg (energy density weight) and a C-rating of 1.5 (charge rate). Results indicate that the main bottleneck in making more ferries technically electrifiable is the battery C-rating: many ferries only stop for short durations during the day, limiting their ability to recharge the battery. Assuming no operational changes, an increased C-rating would allow those ferries to charge faster, thereby increasing feasibility. By increasing the batteries’ C-rating to a value of 5, 68% of ferries could be technically-feasible, out of which 53% of ferries could be economically-feasible in 2030, an increase of respectively 11 pp and 10 pp compared to the base scenario. In comparison, by 2030, volumetric and gravimetric density cease to be technical bottlenecks in our modelling.

Assessment of hybrid-electric ferries

Ship selection

The sample of ferries we studied is the same as the one used in Section 3.2. Out of 904 ferries on conventional fuels and with sufficient data, we removed 70 with irregular schedules, creating a sample of 834 ferries that could potentially be electrified.

We prioritised maximum potential electrification for vessels: if a vessel can technically operate as a battery-electric vessel, we assumed it would operate as such. We only modeled as hybrids the vessels that are not yet technically suitable for battery-electric operations based on existing technologies. For these, we calculated technological and economic feasibility based on the assumption that between 50% and 95% of the vessel’s required energy to perform a representative voyage should be delivered by the battery. We select this assumption since our goal is to minimise GHG emissions from ferries. In our hybrid model, onboard diesel generators produce electricity to power the electric motors and to supplement the electricity stored in batteries, which are charged at berth.

Fleet technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness

In section 3.2.2, our assessment concluded that 20% of European ferries could already operate more cheaply as battery-electric newbuilds than based on conventional propulsion technology in 2025. We find that an additional 12% of ferries would be technically feasible and economically competitive as hybrid electric vessels, increasing to a total of 32% the share of the European ferry fleet that could be replaced by full or partial battery electric propulsion systems already in 2025. By 2035, up to 52% of ferries would be viable as battery-electric newbuilds, and an additional 16% would be viable as hybrid vessels, for a total of 68% of the overall fleet. Removing shore-side electricity taxes has only limited impact on hybrid feasibility rates, since while it allows more non-feasible vessels to be hybrids, it also allows more hybrids to be fully battery-electric ferries.

Technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness by country

Cost-effectiveness results vary widely across countries, mainly due to differences in voyage patterns and electricity prices. In 2025, hybrids can add between 3 and 20 pp in cost-effective feasibility to a country’s ferry fleet. Greece, which has already high battery-electric feasibility, only sees small gains of 4 pp. Italy, Germany and Spain have intermediate gains, respectively 16 pp, 10 pp, and 12 pp. Norway and Sweden can increase feasibility by 20 and 19 pp respectively. It appears that since non-feasibility for ferries in those countries derives from the C-rating of batteries being too low, hybrids can increase feasibility by limiting charging requirements at port. Finally, France and the UK have both 3 ferries that could be hybrid. These two countries have a respective 9% and 23% of ferries that would be technically feasible as hybrids but their cost-effectiveness is limited by high electricity prices.

Cost and CO2 savings

We find cost savings from hybrid ships to be similar to those for battery electric vessels. Hybrid vessels must still surrender ETS allowances and procure alternative low carbon/renewable fuels in relation with the operation of the onboard genset, but have lower electricity purchasing needs from shore and lower battery-related CAPEX costs compared to pure battery-electric vessels. Cost-effective 2025 hybrid newbuilds are estimated to save 14% in fuel and ETS costs over their lifetime, equivalent to battery-electric vessels. By 2035, pure battery-electric ships could save 32% in fuel and ETS costs, with hybrids achieving average cost reductions of 36%. Although hybrid-electric vessels have lower CAPEX costs, they would still have to surrender ETS allowances for the emissions from fuel consumption.

For cost-effective ferries, the TCO breakeven year is 16 years for hybrids and 19 years for battery-electric ships built in 2025. This goes down to approximately 6 years for battery-electric newbuilds and 4 years for hybrid newbuilds entering the fleet from 2035 onwards. Hybrid and battery-electric vessels differ in terms of lifetime CO₂. Savings increase from 8% of total fleet CO₂ in 2025 to 24%, in 2035 for battery electric vessels. For hybrid vessels, lifetime CO₂ savings go from 10% to a maximum of 18% of total fleet emissions by 2035. Economic feasibility for hybrid vessels is inferior to battery-electric vessels, but because hybrid vessels tend to be larger, lifetime CO₂ savings remain significant. Combined with full electrification potential, this would amount to a 42% reduction of CO₂ emissions from the European ferry fleet.

Sensitivity analysis

Looking at the sensitivity analysis for hybrid technology, the results follow the same pattern as for battery-electric vessels. A FEUM exemption for small vessels would reduce viability by approximately 2 pp. Conversely, the domestic electricity taxes exemption provides a modest positive benefit of less than 2 pp when implemented.

Among the quantitative parameters, ship energy demand shows the largest sensitivity with a 25% increase in energy demand leading to a 4 pp decrease in feasibility and a 25% decrease in energy demand leading to a 1 pp increase. Electricity prices also demonstrate notable effects, with a 25% price decrease causing a 2 pp increase in feasibility while a similar increase in electricity prices produces a 4 pp decrease, highlighting cost vulnerability. The discount rate proves influential as well, with a 3% variation causing approximately ±3 pp swings. Overall, regulatory exemptions and operational parameters like energy demand and electricity pricing emerge as the most critical factors affecting hybrid technology viability.

Port electric power requirements

For hybrids, we calculated an additional total yearly electricity demand of 3 TWh, with 2.1 TWh being consumed on the representative routes we assessed for 2035. The ports and routes distribution presented below exhibits similar patterns as for battery-electric vessels presented in section 3.2.7, both in terms of energy demand and geographical concentration: 34% of vessels will require less than 5 GWh of energy during the year and 5 MW of charging power. However, hybrid-electric vessels tend to be larger compared to battery-electric ferries: this translates into a marked increase in the required power, with 55 ports requiring 20+ MW. Notably, while this impact is additional to the required charging infrastructure to most fully-electric ferries, the real-life power requirements depend on both the power requirement of the vessel and the share of hybridisation. Nonetheless, additional peak power demand from larger hybrid vessels should be separately considered when planning electricity grid expansions.

Assessment of e-fuels and biofuels

We performed a TCO analysis for several e-fuels and biofuels, and compared the results to those obtained by modelling battery-electric and hybrid ferries. We modelled operating ferries with e-methanol, e-ammonia, liquid e-hydrogen (e-LH2) and hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO). We compared the results to the base case of a FuelEU-compliant mix of MDO, FAME and HVO, or LNG and biomethane, depending on the fuel currently used by each vessel.

We assumed that for e-methanol, e-ammonia and HVO, those fuels would be used in internal combustion engines (ICEs). For e-LH2, we modelled energy conversion using solid-oxide fuel cell technology, a promising option in transport for energy stored in hydrogen, though H2 dual-fuel ICEs are increasingly more available and powerful.

Technical feasibility

Similar to the assessment of battery-electric feasibility in sections 3.2 and 3.3, we evaluated technical feasibility of alternative fuels based on whether ferries could perform a representative voyage using the given technology. We used two criteria: whether a vessel has sufficient fuel storage capacity and whether it has sufficient energy to perform a representative voyage.

To assess fuel storage capacity, we assumed that for e-methanol, e-ammonia and HVO, the existing fuel tank volume could be used. For e-LH2, fuel cells require less space than an ICE, but additional equipment is required to store the fuel. We used an empirical formula based on engine power (see Annex 3.6.2) to calculate available space.

For a 2025 build year, we found that 679 ferries out of 904 are technically feasible when using e-LH2, with the remainder ineligible because we cannot calculate the available volume for hydrogen storage tanks (see Annex 3.2.2). For the remaining fuels, 890 out of 904 vessels are technically feasible. 14 vessels were removed due to their small fuel tanks below 10 cubic meters, the minimum threshold we set for the modelling. Still, all ferries have enough space to transport the fuel required for their most critical voyages, as ferries tend to operate on short routes relative to their size, limiting their energy needs compared to other vessel types.

Economic feasibility

For a 2025 build year, e-fuels and bio-fuels, economic feasibility depends on whether the increased CAPEX and fuel costs can be compensated by reduced ETS costs. In the base case, no alternative fuel is economically competitive with the default pathway where a vessel blends fossil fuel (LNG or MDO) with an increasing share of biodiesel or biomethane. ETS prices are too low to compensate for the increase in fuel costs and CAPEX. When modelling a ferry using only biofuels against the base case, fuel costs are higher compared to blending MDO and HVO, making it economically not competitive.

For a 2035 build year, 76% of ferries are feasible and competitive with e-ammonia, and 28% with e-LH2. Those results are driven by higher ETS costs in the future, the need to blend in higher quantities of biofuels to comply with FuelEU carbon intensity targets, and a forecasted decrease in the cost of e-fuels. Furthermore for e-LH2, it benefits from the higher efficiency of fuel cells compared to ICE, allowing it to use less fuel to deliver the same output energy. However, these results exclude potential costs for safety equipment necessary to operate with these fuels.

Sensitivity analysis

We use the same sensitivity checks as applied to battery-electric feasibility in sections 3.2 and 3.3, with the exceptions of the ones specific to battery-capacity and charging power. In addition, we add a sensitivity check where we increase the number of voyages before a vessel can bunker.

For a 2035 build year, the analysis reveals stark differences in viability among alternative fuels when compared against the standard scenario. E-ammonia is the most feasible option, with 76% of ferries cost-competitive under base case assumptions. E-hydrogen increases feasibility to 28% in the base case, owing to the higher fuel costs and fuel cell CAPEX. E-methanol and HVO show no cost-effectiveness under base conditions and all sensitivity scenarios.

Results are highly sensitive to changes in the base-case fuel prices: a reduction of 25% in fuel costs for a vessel operating with a fossil fuel mix will reduce economic feasibility to 0% for ammonia, and to 7% for e-LH2. An increase of 25% in price can raise e-LH2 feasibility to 50% of the fleet, and 84% for green ammonia. This highlights the underlying results’ uncertainty: although e-fuels can play a strong role in helping decarbonise ferries, their economic feasibility under current regulations is contingent on reducing the cost difference between them, fossil fuels, and biofuels.

Comparison between technologies

We compare annualized costs per gigajoule of energy used between technologies. For each feasible ferry, we sum the OPEX for each year with the average CAPEX, annualized and spread equally over all the years of the ferry’s lifetime. We then compute the average per technology for all vessels that are technically-feasible for said technology. Since we use a constant price for electricity, and because CAPEX is spread evenly across all years, cost per gigajoule for battery-electric vessels is constant. For the baseline MDO/HVO/FAME mix, the cost increases with the rise in forecasted HVO and FAME and ETS prices, and the changing targets of FEUM. Further, due to technological maturity on the one hand, and supply constraints on the other side, E-fuel prices are expected to decrease in the future, while the price of waste-based HVO is expected to increase due to higher demand and low potential for increased production.

Hybrid and battery-electric vessels are the cheapest options among the technologies we examine, with a cost by 2050 of €69/GJ and €73/GJ respectively by 2050. By 2040, battery costs are forecasted to be inferior to the baseline scenario’s cost. By 2045, e-ammonia costs are expected to be lower than the baseline’s. E-ammonia is the cheapest e-fuel, with a cost of €79/GJ by 2050.

Ferries provide essential services to Europe’s citizens. Yet, our analysis shows that they are also responsible for a significant share of air pollution in densely populated ports areas.

Beyond air pollution, electrification offers a unique opportunity to significantly reduce GHG emissions: Today, 20% of EU ferries could be cheaper as battery-electrics, rising up to 52% in 2035. Hybrid ferries further raise the potential to at least 32% in 2025, or 68% in 2035.

Key reforms of EU policy to enable this transition and support domestic industry:

1

Expand the ETS and FuelEU Maritime to cover vessels >400GT, ensuring coverage of the most electrifiable ferry segments. 80% of annual voyages are undertaken by ships between 400 and 5000 GT, which show high potential and require smaller port-side infrastructure to accommodate electrification. The inclusion of smaller ferries in the upcoming legislative revisions would level the playing field, drive almost 10% additional electrification, increase revenues for re-investment, and create certainty for projects already under development.
2

Expand the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) beyond shore power mandates to include vessel charging infrastructure. Many ports are planning and investing in their grids and infrastructure to accommodate the implementation of OPS mandates under AFIR. The explicit reference of maritime charging infrastructure can drive co-investment opportunities, anticipate future demand from electric vessels, and avoid redundancies for grid expansion plans in the key TEN-T ports, in particular for vessels below 5000 GT.
3

Revise EU procurement rules to ensure sustainable use of public resources including through zero-emission standards. While not yet covered under EU climate rules, smaller ferries more often operate under public contracts, support, or service obligations - a key opportunity to leverage demand for this segment and generate co-benefits for local populations. The reform of public procurement in the EU should integrate binding local content requirements, as well as resilience criteria to promote sustainable products and practices. Stimulating demand through public procurement creates the necessary market conditions for decarbonised products, enables economies of scale to reduce costs and increase accessibility, following the direction taken in the Net Zero Industry Act.
4

Integrate marine battery production into strategic battery production capacity goals, including through the EU Industrial Maritime Strategy. The European shipbuilding and maritime equipment industries hold a competitive advantage in developing complex and bespoke vessels and technologies. Electrifying European ports, coastal and short-sea shipping would reduce Europe’s reliance on imported fossil fuels, enhance the EU’s energy resilience, and maintain high-value manufacturing jobs. Electric shortsea transport can additionally function as dual-use assets, which can serve both civilian and military purposes.

Under existing regulations, national and regional governments can already use key policies:

1

Utilise the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) and Green Public Procurement (GPP) methodologies. Existing state aid rules offer a range of optional sustainability criteria. Zero-emission criteria can be introduced under the ‘most economically advantageous tender’ (MEAT) procedure. When not directly involved in the project, authorities can establish coordination forums to connect relevant stakeholders to facilitate integrated planning between ferry owners, grid operators, and port authorities.
2

Reduce national taxes and duties on electricity supplied to vessels, as already provided in the Energy Taxation Directive. Beyond shore side power supply, the price of electricity and associated taxation are key issues for electrification. Reducing national taxes on shoreside electricity can immediately support the deployment of electric ferries contributing to a level playing field for either energy source, where electrification can benefit from its inherent efficient energy use.
3

Expand Emission Control Areas (ECAs) to outermost regions and end route-specific exemptions. Europe’s most polluted ports are consistently those located outside of Emissions Control Areas in the EU’s exempt outermost regions. These exemptions are denying remote communities the benefits of readily available cleaner vessels - low-pollution fuels, battery-, and hybrid-electric.

Downloads

Executive summary

State of play of the European ferry fleet

Fleet characteristics

Geographical distribution

Environmental significance

Regulation

Global/IMO level

EU level

Ferry traffic and emissions

Methodology overview

Total traffic and GHG emissions

Route-level traffic and GHG emissions

Country-level traffic and GHG emissions

Port-level traffic and GHG emissions

Total air pollution near European ports

Port-level air pollution

Techno-economic assessment of decarbonisation technologies

Methodology overview

Assessment of battery-electric ferries

Ship selection

Fleet technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness

Technical feasibility analysis

Technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness by country

Cost and CO2 savings

Sensitivity analysis for cost-competitive battery-electric ferries

Port electric power requirements

Improvement in battery parameters

Assessment of hybrid-electric ferries

Ship selection

Fleet technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness

Technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness by country

Cost and CO2 savings

Sensitivity analysis

Port electric power requirements

Assessment of e-fuels and biofuels

Technical feasibility

Economic feasibility

Sensitivity analysis

Comparison between technologies

Discussion and recommendations

IMO Net-Zero Framework: Way forward after MEPC 84

UN shipping deal lives to fight another day, as US fails to derail negotiations

The Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation for shipping