Resumen
The pathway to zero carbon emissions passing through carbon emissions reduction is mandatory in the shipping industry. Regarding the various methodologies and technologies reviewed for this purpose, Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) has been used as an excellent tool to determine economic feasibility and sustainability and to present directions. However, insufficient commercial applications cause a conflict of opinion on which fuel is the key to decarbonisation. Many LCCA comparison studies about eco-friendly ship propulsion claim different results. In order to overcome this and discover the key factors that affect the overall comparative analysis and results in the maritime field, it is necessary to conduct the comparative analysis considering more diverse case ships, case routes, and various types that combine each system. This study aims to analyse which greener fuels are most economically beneficial for the shipping sector and prove the factors influencing different results in LCCA. This study was conducted on hydrogen, ammonia, and electric energy, which are carbon-free fuels among various alternative fuels that are currently in the limelight. As the power source, a PEMFC and battery were used as the main power source, and a solar PV system was installed as an auxiliary power source to compare economic feasibility. Several cost data for LCCA were selected from various feasible case studies. As the difficulty caused by the storage and transportation of hydrogen and ammonia should not be underestimated, in this study, the LCCA considers not only the CapEx and OpEx but also fuel transport costs. As a result, fuel cell propulsion systems with hydrogen as fuel proved financial effectiveness for short-distance ferries as they are more inexpensive than ammonia-fuelled PEMFCs and batteries. The fuel cost takes around half of the total life-cycle cost during the life span.