Is it because it wasn't cheaper?
I bet it's because it wasn't cheaper.
Basically yes:
In the forseeable future, renewable e-methanol will be substantially more expensive than conventional oil-based shipping fuels like marine diesel or LSFO.
But lets not forget the lobbying against any sort of regulation on it like forcing a quota on renewable fuel sources.
Even lobbying organizations from the shipping industry appeared positive towards such a quota. In a statement by the European Community Shipowners' Associations, they write that they support the EU Parliament's proposal for a 2030 quota in principle but want similar requirements for fuel suppliers.
they support it in principle... what the hell does that mean? They like the idea of it but cannot actually support it? Or just they want to sound like they support it when really they don't. Either way the proposals were watered down and delayed:
If any of these proposals had been passed, the fate of FlagshipONE might have been different. However, the EU eventually agreed to much weaker requirements. A quota of 2 percent RFNBOs would only start in 2034, and even that comes with some caveats. Under the final FuelEU Maritime regulation, shipping companies would not have any requirement to purchase relatively expensive e-fuels for another decade and can likely fulfill the modest emission reduction requirements while still primarily relying on fossil fuels.
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.