[Animats]

A natural gas powered container ship would probably have lower emissions per unit of cargo moved than the proposed "eco" sailing ship, which has low cargo capacity by modern standards. The big problem with cargo ships from a pollution standpoint is that they run on really crappy "bunker oil C", which is about halfway between jet fuel and asphalt. Heavier than seawater. One of the biggest sources of preventable pollution.

And, come on, then want to haul sails by hand on a ship of that size? And use rowing machines to generate electric power? They'd need a huge crew.

Liquid natural gas carriers often run on their own natural gas. There a few natural gas powered freighters now, but they're built in the US for the run to Puerto Rico, which, under the Jones Act, is limited to American ships.

[nickserv]

The latest ships used by CMA-CGM use LNG, and they're not planning on using heavy fuels anymore.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Saad%C3%A9-class_con...

[Roark66]

Exactly. Also, they didn't seem to mention the speed difference between typical diesel ship and their proposed "Eco" ship. If it takes a week more that might be fine, but if it takes 5 times as long no one will use it for large scale commercial goods (perhaps there is a niche for transporting "Eco" products)

[TotempaaltJ]

Natural gas has its own issues https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/6/22422824/natural-gas-infra...

[TheBill]

90% of that is burying the lead that leaking methane is an issue. No shit, but moving from Bunker>LSFO>LNG is going to cause a net decrease in GHG emissions. Operators that have to focus on profit margins, not maintaining artificial monopolies can't afford to subsidize leaking equipment. Aliso Canyon caused a substantial investment in methane detection hardware thats in use. Next step is getting E&P co's to pay into a perpetual fund that monitors old wells.