Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

The new ship carries 20% more people and 40% more cars while having lower NO and SO emissions. It will have more methane emissions simply because it uses that fuel and the old ferry didn't, which is a good chunk of the reason it's "CO2 Equivalent" emissions seem high.

The article does a great job of not telling the reader about emissions per mile between the old ship and the new one, nor does it tell you the emissions per passenger mile, both of which are vital to know if the new ship is a net benefit.

Were electric ferries not a viable option?

For short routes, they are.

Here in Estonia, two ferries that sail to the island Saaremaa (route Kuivastu-Virtsu, about 4 nautical miles so really short) ...they typically charge in port and travel on battery power. They have a combustion engine of course, and can use it when ice is thick (which lately hasn't been the case, and this year is ridiculous, it's January soon and there even no snow, not to speak of sea ice).

https://news.err.ee/1609198900/40-million-procurement-underway-for-larger-electric-vessel-to-serve-saaremaa

The power grid connection at the port was redesigned of course. Charging a ship requires more amps than an ordinary port might have access to.

But how long is the Arran sea route? Sources give me different numbers and on the map, I can't figure out which port they actually prefer to sail from. Either way, it looks manageable on battery power.

I don't understand why it is called "green"? It's using natural gas as fuel.

I guess in 2017, when they started the project, electric wasn't a good option? And they overestimated the positives of the fuel it was designed for.

With shitty EV ranges, where are you gonna find a charger at sea hmm? HMM??

/s