Dual-fuel ships with Wind Assist are shipping’s insurance policy. Efficiency is the payout
As dual-fuel newbuilds are increasingly viewed as a hedge against fuel risk, BAR Technologies CEO John Cooper argues the real hedge is burning less fuel, whatever it turns out to be. There has been an interesting shift in the discussion around dual-fuel vessels. They were largely sold as part of shipping’s decarbonisation story. Increasingly, they ...
As the shipping industry increasingly views dual-fuel newbuilds as a hedge against fuel risk, BAR Technologies CEO John Cooper contends the real hedge lies in burning less fuel, regardless of the fuel type. The conversation around dual-fuel vessels has evolved from primarily a decarbonisation story to a focus on financial protection in an unpredictable energy landscape.
With capital commitments lasting 25 to 30 years, flexibility in fuel choice carries significant value. Geopolitical factors further emphasize the importance of energy security, availability, price volatility, and regulation.
When committing to a ship, the question becomes: How can exposure be reduced, no matter which way the market turns? Alphaliner's data reveals that dual-fuel ships accounted for 72% of container capacity ordered in the first ten months of 2025, a decline from 81% in 2024 and 83% in 2023. Meanwhile, methanol's share fell from 18% to 12%, while conventionally fuelled tonnage increased to 28%.
This shift indicates that selecting a fuel is not a straightforward decision. Of the 131 ships above 10,000 TEU ordered, only 10 were conventionally fuelled. It suggests that while decarbonisation remains important, the choice of fuel remains challenging. Alphaliner also reported that Maersk and CMA CGM are struggling to secure enough affordable methanol. Importantly, the availability and cost of fuels after a vessel's delivery remain uncertain factors.
The solution, according to Cooper, lies in using less fuel. Whether the vessel runs on LNG, methanol, or another fuel, reducing consumption is key. This approach provides a buffer against future fuel price or availability changes. Wind propulsion, for instance, can reduce fuel consumption by using wind to supplement the main engine, decreasing the load on the engine and, consequently, fuel use.
This not only cuts emissions but also provides a financial benefit, as less fuel means fewer expenses, especially if future fuels become more expensive or scarce.
Cooper's message is clear: fuel flexibility protects against choosing the wrong fuel, while fuel efficiency shields against the cost and availability of all fuels. These considerations demonstrate that shipowners are increasingly looking beyond emissions reduction to view investments in terms of resilience, optionality, and financial risk.
He advocates for an approach that combines fuel flexibility with fuel efficiency, emphasizing that the real value lies in needing less fuel, regardless of the specific fuel type or market conditions. With technologies like wind propulsion already available, shipowners can reduce their fuel needs, making their investments more resilient against future uncertainties.
Written by urgent.news from Hellenic Shipping News's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
