> So, we're keeping the fire hazard, but adding a stored energy hazard in the form of compressed gas? All in a retrofit? This doesn't sound like a good idea for international ships.

Indeed not, I haven't heard of any large cargo ship using gas fuel at sea other than gas carriers. I know that there are some dual-fuel ships, which use gas fuel in costal waters for emissions reasons, but they carry much less gas than would be required for a full voyage.

> > and most ports will have a significant supply available.

> Are you sure about that?

Ports have electric cranes (the big ones, not the straddle cranes), shore power supply for ships, bulk goods handling facilities, etc. They often have a high voltage (110kV+) supply. This won't be true everywhere, but it is common.

Of course it's not just a drop in process and it will be expensive to get all the new equipment in place.

My nearest port got their first electric tug two years ago and they documented what they needed to do. They did have to install a new substation, but their existing 110kV feeder lines have plenty of capacity, they already consume over 13GWh per year so the increase needed to charge the tug wasn't high.

I am ignoring the issues with charging battery-electric large cargo ships because the article did not consider those either.