• Ferrous@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 days ago

    Except it does.

    This power helps run the ship’s operations, lowering fuel use and making the ship more energy efficient.

    This is textbook peak shaving. Not to mention the engineering feat of integrating solar with LNG for this cargo application.

    Hopping into the comments to decry the ship for not doing full propulsion via solar just shows your ignorance. It’s like complaining about a hammer for not being able to screw in a fastener.

    • DoomProphet@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 days ago

      It’s just greenwashing. Companies do it all the time. Slapp some solar on it or use some insignificant amount of recycling and you got your press release which lazy journalist just have to copy. That lead to clickbait articles.

      And if you’re being honest you’re just defending it because the “by China” in the title.

      • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        Accusations of greenwashing are different than accusations of bad engineering. That’s a different conversation.

    • ryannathans@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 days ago

      This is an odd strawman to construct

      doing full propulsion via solar just shows your ignorance

      The only ignorant person here my friend is you, nobody has said or suggested such a thing

      • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        18 days ago

        Soo, then why did you characterize the solar power as being inadequate for propulsion? That is a meaningless thing to point out - given how the solar is not intended for propulsion. What was your original point?