By Rob Mortimer

In the race to decarbonize maritime transport, the sector has become distracted by technologies that look good on paper but do little in practice. Too many current strategies are engineered to win headlines rather than reduce emissions. The fastest and most effective path forward is to focus on optimizing the fuels we are already using. That means improving combustion efficiency, measuring real output, and holding technologies to the same standard of performance and transparency.

The maritime industry continues to emphasize so-called transition fuels, such as biofuels. On the surface, these seem like a win. They are renewable, supported by incentives, and can be blended into existing systems. But the moment you factor in energy density and real combustion performance, the story falls apart. Most biofuels release less energy per unit mass than conventional marine diesel or heavy fuel oil, so vessels require more fuel to generate the same power, increasing fuel mass flow and emissions in real terms.

This is not decarbonization. It is accounting sleight of hand.

The more intelligent route is to optimize conventional fuels. Technologies such as hydrocarbon reformers and combustion conditioners are already delivering verified results. Fuelre4m’s own platform, for instance, has demonstrated up to 20 percent reductions in fuel consumption and emissions, without the need for retrofits or operational change; no change to bunkering, no additional load on crew, and no impact on vessel scheduling.

To get serious about emissions, the sector must move away from legacy metrics such as specific fuel oil consumption (SFOC). SFOC has turned into a flawed approximation that averages behavior and hides inefficiencies. It does not account for actual output, nor does it track variations in power delivery under real-world conditions. The only metric that matters is: fuel in, power out. Why are engine manufacturers let off the hook by not being forced to report the actual power and efficiency of their engines on real, used fuels?

The only meaningful measurement of performance is what happens at the shaft. That means tracking torque, shaft RPM, net thrust, delivered power and mass fuel flow as standard. This is how we uncover inefficiencies, benchmark optimization technologies and expose underperformance. These parameters tell us what the engine is really doing, how much force is being applied to move the ship, and how much fuel is being burned to do it.

If these metrics became the regulatory standard, we would immediately reveal gaps in fuel and propulsion efficiency across the fleet. We would identify the true cost of “low-energy” fuels and expose the operational impact of degraded engine performance. Better still, we would unlock immediate emissions savings at no capital cost. This is proven, accessible and measurable.

Critically, this approach gives the industry time. Time to test new fuels properly. Time to work out bunkering logistics for ammonia or hydrogen. Time to develop propulsion systems delivering reliable thrust at scale. But all of this is only worthwhile if future fuels are held to the same measurement standards: power output, fuel flow, torque, thrust; not extrapolated claims or idealized simulations. Until we bring rigor and real metrics to the center of emissions reduction strategy, we will keep wasting money and time.

Optimizing fossil fuels is not a step backward. It represents progress that can happen right now. It reduces emissions, lowers operating costs, demands accountability. And it creates the space we need to build the technologies of tomorrow on a foundation of real, measurable performance, not promises.

The future will be clean. But right now, we must be accurate.

Rob Mortimer is the CEO and founder of Fuelre4m.