Wind-Powered Cargo Ships(singularityhub.com)
singularityhub.com
Wind-Powered Cargo Ships
https://singularityhub.com/2023/02/17/wind-powered-cargo-ships-are-the-future-debunking-4-myths-that-stand-in-the-way-of-cutting-emissions/
68 comments
> the limiting factor is the max size ports can accommodate.
And the size of the canals (Suez, Panama) they have to pass through in some cases.
Edit: here's a good graphic showing max sizes for various types of ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suezmax#/media/File:Ship_measu...
And the size of the canals (Suez, Panama) they have to pass through in some cases.
Edit: here's a good graphic showing max sizes for various types of ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suezmax#/media/File:Ship_measu...
Unless the price of oil exceeds the value of the goods being delivered.
It wont for long time. For light and not too volumetric cargo the shipping in container is very very cheap. Like laughably little from price of item.
When Peak oil happens, if we don't have a replacement fuel (which we don't currently), then it won't be long time, it will be forever.
Peak oil has long been predicted but it never arrives.
What has happened is that as demand for oil rose, we found and exploited new sources - so many that we created a glut and shut down exploitation of some sources because the price of oil was too low for it to be economically viable.
What has happened is that as demand for oil rose, we found and exploited new sources - so many that we created a glut and shut down exploitation of some sources because the price of oil was too low for it to be economically viable.
This is interesting, but I suspect Maersk's work on ammonia/Methanol engines may beat it to decarbonising shipping. Interestingly Maersk Oil tried using wind power a few years ago - iirc they found it got about a 10% reduction in fuel usage, which is not nothing, but it very far from perfect…
If perfection was the goal, then I'd assert they had no real interest in it other than PR.
Wind has had a hard time competing with cheap heavy fuel oil—the toxic sludge that refineries have no other use for.
What will happen to that fuel if they stop buying it?
Plastics, asphalt, fertilizer, sealants, complex hydrocarbon chemicals. I think everyone kind of underestimates how much of our lives is based on oil. Transport is the largest user, ~50% of each barrel. But the green revolution wouldn't be possible without it. If we stop using oil for fuel it will simply be refined into something else.
At least for those other use cases the emissions are much less.
Yes, oil is used everywhere. And one reason why is because it is dirt-cheap compared to other materials. However, price does not account for the environmental price paid.
That's why even the article is telling that sail cargo ship projects are betting on regulation. If the adopted regulation is a cargo tax, we will use less and less oil. Of course, today we still need it and oil will be used to create new green solution. Even with a very high carbon tax, I assume there will still be use cases for oil because it is a really incredible material and energy source.
"The most versatile substance on the planet and they used it to make a frisbee. Typical of humans." Helen Cho - not very scientific but so truly mind-blowing.
Edit : layout for readability
That's why even the article is telling that sail cargo ship projects are betting on regulation. If the adopted regulation is a cargo tax, we will use less and less oil. Of course, today we still need it and oil will be used to create new green solution. Even with a very high carbon tax, I assume there will still be use cases for oil because it is a really incredible material and energy source.
"The most versatile substance on the planet and they used it to make a frisbee. Typical of humans." Helen Cho - not very scientific but so truly mind-blowing.
Edit : layout for readability
Probably they'll find a way to burn it that stays within regulations. It's not impossible, just more expensive than sending it to the shipping industry.
The other scenario is interesting too btw: given that demand for combustion cars will be going down dramatically over the coming decades as countries regulate against them, the demand for petrol and diesel will also fall. Eventually, some refineries will shut down as there is no longer sufficient demand. That will also reduce the availability of these byproducts of refining and might eventually force shipping onto cleaner fuels as a side effect.
The other scenario is interesting too btw: given that demand for combustion cars will be going down dramatically over the coming decades as countries regulate against them, the demand for petrol and diesel will also fall. Eventually, some refineries will shut down as there is no longer sufficient demand. That will also reduce the availability of these byproducts of refining and might eventually force shipping onto cleaner fuels as a side effect.
I'm pretty sure petrol and diesel consumption will not fall significantly: As the price falls, people will drive more with larger cars in countries with less stringent environmental regulation.
Open cycle gas turbines will increasingly being use to generate electricity because it can quickly come online when solar and wind power is insufficient. They burn diesel in many parts of the world.
The real loser is coal.
Open cycle gas turbines will increasingly being use to generate electricity because it can quickly come online when solar and wind power is insufficient. They burn diesel in many parts of the world.
The real loser is coal.
Long hydrocarbon chains can be cut to shorter fragments [1]. The resulting substances can be used to produce all kinds of further chemical products, plastics, etc.
I suspect the last cracking reactors will be powered by abundant solar energy.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_(chemistry)
I suspect the last cracking reactors will be powered by abundant solar energy.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_(chemistry)
The point of the exercise is to sunset the industry, not keep it afloat.
Phasing out oil as rapidly as possible is considered a victory
Phasing out oil as rapidly as possible is considered a victory
The petrochemical industry will not be sunsetted in our lifetimes. That is not a reasonable thing to expect or want. At most we can somewhat reduce the use of fossil fuels for power, heating, and transportation. Use of fossil fuels as chemical feedstocks will increase.
> The petrochemical industry will not be sunsetted in our lifetimes
Not with that attitude it won't!
Dramatic change can happen faster than you think! The 3 social examples I use are smoking, fur coats, and social acceptance of LGBT people.
Fur coats went from consensus glamorous to shameful in about 10 years. Support for gay rights and marriage flipped like a startup hockey stick graph over about 5 years, and smoking went from everywhere to nowhere in about maybe 15 years.
These all happened almost as if by magic after decades of effort and for people working on the causes, the goals achieved still seemed like a lifetime away before they happened.
I understand we're talking global infrastructure, but I'm not going to discount the idea of a rapid transition happening.
For technology, look at the CRT -> flat screen transition. Now any CRT display is so rare that it will fetch a price immediately. Look at landline -> smartphone. Incandescent -> LED. Look at the disappearance of newspapers. In the sci-fi movies of the 20th century, not even fantastic fantasies of far off futures imagined a world without newspapers and now they are actually notable if you see one; you stop and briefly look as if it's some monarch butterfly fluttering by.
All these technological transitions happened in about a decade, from "only speculative people predicting it" to the previous dominant form being considered vintage
These changes, both social and technological are frequent and fairly common. I'm not foolish enough to put a date on energy transition but I'm not pessimistic enough to claim it won't happen in this decade.
Energy is bigger then everything I listed, no kidding. I'm arguing that train has already started and greenhouse emitting energy will become as rare as a landline, newspaper, fur coat, CRT, incandescent, or after dinner smoker within some number of not so many years.
It's okay if you don't feel like it will. If everyone could predict the future, we'd all be billionaires. I acknowledge I might be wrong and my opinion is fairly unique, but this is how I see things. No disrespect to you over our differences
Not with that attitude it won't!
Dramatic change can happen faster than you think! The 3 social examples I use are smoking, fur coats, and social acceptance of LGBT people.
Fur coats went from consensus glamorous to shameful in about 10 years. Support for gay rights and marriage flipped like a startup hockey stick graph over about 5 years, and smoking went from everywhere to nowhere in about maybe 15 years.
These all happened almost as if by magic after decades of effort and for people working on the causes, the goals achieved still seemed like a lifetime away before they happened.
I understand we're talking global infrastructure, but I'm not going to discount the idea of a rapid transition happening.
For technology, look at the CRT -> flat screen transition. Now any CRT display is so rare that it will fetch a price immediately. Look at landline -> smartphone. Incandescent -> LED. Look at the disappearance of newspapers. In the sci-fi movies of the 20th century, not even fantastic fantasies of far off futures imagined a world without newspapers and now they are actually notable if you see one; you stop and briefly look as if it's some monarch butterfly fluttering by.
All these technological transitions happened in about a decade, from "only speculative people predicting it" to the previous dominant form being considered vintage
These changes, both social and technological are frequent and fairly common. I'm not foolish enough to put a date on energy transition but I'm not pessimistic enough to claim it won't happen in this decade.
Energy is bigger then everything I listed, no kidding. I'm arguing that train has already started and greenhouse emitting energy will become as rare as a landline, newspaper, fur coat, CRT, incandescent, or after dinner smoker within some number of not so many years.
It's okay if you don't feel like it will. If everyone could predict the future, we'd all be billionaires. I acknowledge I might be wrong and my opinion is fairly unique, but this is how I see things. No disrespect to you over our differences
So what? You haven't proposed a viable alternative. None of those examples are relevant.
There's an extremely large body of literature and multiple fields of study that have voluminously documented this. Books, podcasts, journals, news articles, congressional records, caselaw, websites, documentaries, museums, conferences spanning decades, hundreds of billions in investments, countless hours of lectures, multiple fortune 500 companies, entire university departments...
Your personal enrichment isn't my responsibility and I feel as much obligation to defend this body of work as I have to defend Maxwell's equations or the Pythagorean theorem - that's kinda on you at this point. You're free to be a crank and I'm free to decline to engage. I do however, wish you success in your pursuit.
Your personal enrichment isn't my responsibility and I feel as much obligation to defend this body of work as I have to defend Maxwell's equations or the Pythagorean theorem - that's kinda on you at this point. You're free to be a crank and I'm free to decline to engage. I do however, wish you success in your pursuit.
Now you're just making things up. None of that body of literature proposes an economically viable approach for replacing fossil fuels used as chemical feedstock. Hydrocarbon synthesis is technically possible and has been done on a small scale, but no one has ever proposed a realistic plan for doing it the level needed.
I literally copied and pasted your objection into Google and got thousands of results from places like the world economic forum, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, IEA, and that's just page 1.
Your objection is equivalent to saying in 1998, "LCD panels don't currently constitute 75% of the market so it's unfeasible that it will ever occupy that position" or in 2005, "nobody has demonstrated large scale rollout of 3G networks so landlines aren't going away"
This style of argument is the same creationists use when they point to something like blood clotting and say "aha, there isn't yet evolutionary evidence for this so therefore Jesus!" And then evolutionary evidence came forth and they gish galloped onward to the next goalpost.
So, #1, golf clap for that rhetorical gambit and #2, please excuse me for ending this here.
Your objection is equivalent to saying in 1998, "LCD panels don't currently constitute 75% of the market so it's unfeasible that it will ever occupy that position" or in 2005, "nobody has demonstrated large scale rollout of 3G networks so landlines aren't going away"
This style of argument is the same creationists use when they point to something like blood clotting and say "aha, there isn't yet evolutionary evidence for this so therefore Jesus!" And then evolutionary evidence came forth and they gish galloped onward to the next goalpost.
So, #1, golf clap for that rhetorical gambit and #2, please excuse me for ending this here.
That kind of predictions have historically been hilariously wrong in hindsight but you've also overestimated how much influence we have on events. I have no idea how fast ruining the eco system will improve the odds but we can always have floods, earthquakes, tidal waves, meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, solar flairs, diseases, famine, ice age, industrial accidents, war and an endless variety of collective insanity/mass hysteria.
We could see the end of the petrochemical industry in 10 minutes.
We could see the end of the petrochemical industry in 10 minutes.
The Norwegian shipping company Wallenius Wilhelmsen is currently working on a 220 meter RoRo vessel with sails [1].
Orcelle Wind is a wind-powered Pure Car Truck Carrier, a type of deepsea Roll On, Roll Off vessel. It will be 220 meters and have a capacity for over 7,000 cars, but will also be capable of carrying breakbulk and rolling equipment. Orcelle Wind is a crucial part of Wallenius Wilhelmsen’s fleet decarbonization strategy and the ambition is for it to commence sailing in late 2026 or early 2027.
Orcelle Wind is the first vessel from the Oceanbird concept (see link below) for primarily wind-powered vessels. The concept shows that it is theoretically possible to reduce emissions from vessels by up to 90 percent if all emissions-influencing factors are aligned.
[1]https://www.walleniuswilhelmsen.com/news/worlds-first-wind-p...
Orcelle Wind is a wind-powered Pure Car Truck Carrier, a type of deepsea Roll On, Roll Off vessel. It will be 220 meters and have a capacity for over 7,000 cars, but will also be capable of carrying breakbulk and rolling equipment. Orcelle Wind is a crucial part of Wallenius Wilhelmsen’s fleet decarbonization strategy and the ambition is for it to commence sailing in late 2026 or early 2027.
Orcelle Wind is the first vessel from the Oceanbird concept (see link below) for primarily wind-powered vessels. The concept shows that it is theoretically possible to reduce emissions from vessels by up to 90 percent if all emissions-influencing factors are aligned.
[1]https://www.walleniuswilhelmsen.com/news/worlds-first-wind-p...
The key question the article doesn’t answer is if there is sufficient low atmospheric kinetic energy to move a cargo vehicle of sufficient density.
Cargo movement is performed at large scales to optimize the cargo to non cargo ratio within constraints of implicit requirements like keeping things dry, not squished, etc.
Can a vehicle maintain a similar cargo to noncargo ratio with an ability to capture sufficient wind?
My alternative would be to go for nuclear powered shipping. I think a country with a higher tolerance for proliferation risks like France or Iran could really transform the world by civilizing the tech in that way.
Cargo movement is performed at large scales to optimize the cargo to non cargo ratio within constraints of implicit requirements like keeping things dry, not squished, etc.
Can a vehicle maintain a similar cargo to noncargo ratio with an ability to capture sufficient wind?
My alternative would be to go for nuclear powered shipping. I think a country with a higher tolerance for proliferation risks like France or Iran could really transform the world by civilizing the tech in that way.
Security concerns make putting nuclear reactors on merchant ships a non starter. Most nations will never allow such vessels into their ports.
Put the reactors on land where they can be properly guarded and operated by trained professionals. Use the resulting heat and power to manufacture synthetic carbon neutral liquid fuels for use by ships (and other parts of the transportation industry).
Put the reactors on land where they can be properly guarded and operated by trained professionals. Use the resulting heat and power to manufacture synthetic carbon neutral liquid fuels for use by ships (and other parts of the transportation industry).
I could see how nuke powered synthetics could be a route, similar to the plan to one day make methane from atmospheric carbon and hydrogen. The LNG facilities might even be compatible.
I also visualize a future where nations that are interested in somewhat more risk transform shipping with higher speed bulk vessels. Maybe it’d be a way for North Korea to get out of the axis of evil and make a positive change in the world. They already have some skills doing lightening at sea for various smuggling activities.
I also visualize a future where nations that are interested in somewhat more risk transform shipping with higher speed bulk vessels. Maybe it’d be a way for North Korea to get out of the axis of evil and make a positive change in the world. They already have some skills doing lightening at sea for various smuggling activities.
Nuclear powered ships would be to putting a crew of ~20 low cost workers assembled from around the world with the inherent communication barriers that brings responsible for a reactor. That does not sound feasible.
Regarding sailing, scale is not the issue. Rather what limitations port operations impose. Combining containers with sails are indeed a challenge. Thus, shipping companies are looking into hydrogen, methanol, ammonia or synthetic fuels.
We bult sail ships weighing 10 000 tons a hundred years ago. Switching the sails to rigid and using modern engineering principles and there's no issue going the x10-40 of that which are current ships scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussen_(ship)
Regarding sailing, scale is not the issue. Rather what limitations port operations impose. Combining containers with sails are indeed a challenge. Thus, shipping companies are looking into hydrogen, methanol, ammonia or synthetic fuels.
We bult sail ships weighing 10 000 tons a hundred years ago. Switching the sails to rigid and using modern engineering principles and there's no issue going the x10-40 of that which are current ships scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussen_(ship)
Still yet to see the math comparing low atmospheric kinetic energy to ship displacement through water. Yes, a large sailing vessel can be created. Can one be operated with sufficient cargo density?
The question of whether 20 odd folks of different nationalities can operate/maintain a reactor seems also to apply to sailing vessels. The change is maybe a matter of degree so is the continuation of current staffing practice more important than decarbonization?
The question of whether 20 odd folks of different nationalities can operate/maintain a reactor seems also to apply to sailing vessels. The change is maybe a matter of degree so is the continuation of current staffing practice more important than decarbonization?
> Still yet to see the math comparing low atmospheric kinetic energy to ship displacement through water. Yes, a large sailing vessel can be created. Can one be operated with sufficient cargo density?
They will likely slow down a bit compared to current vessels, but slow-steaming is already what everyone is doing. The most challenging part is both having the surface area and being able to pass under any bridges to the ports you want to enter, and have enough maneuverability to get through tight channels even when facing adverse wind conditions.
> The question of whether 20 odd folks of different nationalities can operate/maintain a reactor seems also to apply to sailing vessels.
How so? There is about zero 3rd party risk from operating a sail ship, a nuclear vessel can cause huge amounts of contamination if things were to go awry in say Long Beach.
> The change is maybe a matter of degree so is the continuation of current staffing practice more important than decarbonization?
Who is going to pay for the extremely specialized crew required to operate a nuclear reactor when you can take the same ship and put synthetic fuel in it?
They will likely slow down a bit compared to current vessels, but slow-steaming is already what everyone is doing. The most challenging part is both having the surface area and being able to pass under any bridges to the ports you want to enter, and have enough maneuverability to get through tight channels even when facing adverse wind conditions.
> The question of whether 20 odd folks of different nationalities can operate/maintain a reactor seems also to apply to sailing vessels.
How so? There is about zero 3rd party risk from operating a sail ship, a nuclear vessel can cause huge amounts of contamination if things were to go awry in say Long Beach.
> The change is maybe a matter of degree so is the continuation of current staffing practice more important than decarbonization?
Who is going to pay for the extremely specialized crew required to operate a nuclear reactor when you can take the same ship and put synthetic fuel in it?
The largest ships output about 30MW when slow steaming. The largest wind turbines (which are considerably smaller) average about 8MW.
A 100m wing span kite with a swept region of about 500m diameter is equivalent power to the engine.
Comparing potential staffing fuckups that will cost the ship owner half a million to potential staffing fuckups that will make a city uninhabitable is also completely facile.
A 100m wing span kite with a swept region of about 500m diameter is equivalent power to the engine.
Comparing potential staffing fuckups that will cost the ship owner half a million to potential staffing fuckups that will make a city uninhabitable is also completely facile.
To play nuclear shill's advocate, there might be a space where the crewing issues aren't a deal breaker.
If your fuel is comparatively cheap, there's no reason to slow steam anymore, and hull speed for a 400m long vessel is quite high. If your crew costs 20x as much but you're moving 5x as fast with half the fuel costs, it may pencil out.
If your fuel is comparatively cheap, there's no reason to slow steam anymore, and hull speed for a 400m long vessel is quite high. If your crew costs 20x as much but you're moving 5x as fast with half the fuel costs, it may pencil out.
Generally people do not pay extra for faster deliveries, that has never penciled out. If you need it fast you spare no expense and use air freight.
For the rest it is all about cost. Your scenario can happen if the nuclear setup cost less than synthetic fuels, ammonia or hydrogen. But seems incredibly unlikely in the coming decades.
For the rest it is all about cost. Your scenario can happen if the nuclear setup cost less than synthetic fuels, ammonia or hydrogen. But seems incredibly unlikely in the coming decades.
The speed wasn't mentioned as a profit per freight thing, more that moving at hull speed rather than slow steaming reduces all the non-fuel costs. If you make n times as many trips with the same salaries amd same capital expendature then paying times as much per unit time may (or may not) be a net positive.
Plus seeing as you brought it up there is probably a small niche for a premium of 2 weeks over 2 months (even if it's minor). It hasn't pencilled out in the past because fuel costs are quadratic, but might increase revenue per unit slightly if marginal fuel costs are reduced.
Still pretty sceptical on the niche being big enough to justify the R&D though.
Plus seeing as you brought it up there is probably a small niche for a premium of 2 weeks over 2 months (even if it's minor). It hasn't pencilled out in the past because fuel costs are quadratic, but might increase revenue per unit slightly if marginal fuel costs are reduced.
Still pretty sceptical on the niche being big enough to justify the R&D though.
As a sailor I've been watching these develop over the years and usual what is old is now new again. I can't imagine the latest advances in sailing, foiling, are going to be included anytime soon.
I was about to laugh at the idea of a hydrofoil cargo ship, but then again I suppose that it's not theoretically impossible... even if we assume it would be highly impractical, it would be fun to see someone do the math and figure out exactly how impractical they would be.
https://www.boundarylayer.tech/
There's a Y Combinator supported company pursuing it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21662056
3rd comment is from an employee. Big benefit being quick turnaround. Load 160 containers and start the ship rather than loading/unloading a few thousand while the other tens of thousands of containers sit on the ship doing nothing.
There's a Y Combinator supported company pursuing it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21662056
3rd comment is from an employee. Big benefit being quick turnaround. Load 160 containers and start the ship rather than loading/unloading a few thousand while the other tens of thousands of containers sit on the ship doing nothing.
Of course there is YC company for this. Too lazy to google it, but how many of the founding team are actual naval architects with expirience in container ships?
Kind of reminds me on the company trying to develop robots to build solar farms.
Kind of reminds me on the company trying to develop robots to build solar farms.
> Kind of reminds me on the company trying to develop robots to build solar farms.
Yeah, it will be unnecessary once we get panels which can be unfolded just by driving a truck over field placing entire row directly from trailer already connected with cables in one go like [0]. Then just connect the rows.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G38VXkIFSG8
Yeah, it will be unnecessary once we get panels which can be unfolded just by driving a truck over field placing entire row directly from trailer already connected with cables in one go like [0]. Then just connect the rows.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G38VXkIFSG8
Boundary Layer Technologies appears to have dropped their plans for a cargo ship and pivoted into jet skis. There's just not much market demand for slightly faster ocean transport.
The basic technology of a small hydrofoil cargo ship probably would have worked, but the construction, maintenance, and fuel costs would have been huge. Plus hydrofoils don't do well in heavy sea states. And if it collided with a floating hazard like a lost shipping container or a big tree trunk while foiling then the results could be unpleasant.
The basic technology of a small hydrofoil cargo ship probably would have worked, but the construction, maintenance, and fuel costs would have been huge. Plus hydrofoils don't do well in heavy sea states. And if it collided with a floating hazard like a lost shipping container or a big tree trunk while foiling then the results could be unpleasant.
That won't be "slightly" faster; I suspect a hydrofoil ship would be 4-x times as fast, if it could be built. We would see oceangoing military hydrofoil ships, for instance. But, AFAIK, the Pegasus line was the last bunch of sizable hydrofoil ships the US Navy operated [1].
But, AFAICT, for hydrofoil to work, it should lift the watercraft well above the waves, which works fine on rivers, and works somehow in calmer seas; I remember Greece used hydrofoil ships to communicate between its islands. I have trouble imagining the size of hydrofoil "stilts" required to overcome larger ocean waves. The hull should also be much stronger, with few points of support.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus-class_hydrofoil
But, AFAICT, for hydrofoil to work, it should lift the watercraft well above the waves, which works fine on rivers, and works somehow in calmer seas; I remember Greece used hydrofoil ships to communicate between its islands. I have trouble imagining the size of hydrofoil "stilts" required to overcome larger ocean waves. The hull should also be much stronger, with few points of support.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus-class_hydrofoil
The practical speed limit for large hydrofoil ships is about 45 kts, so only about 3× the cruising speed of a conventional displacement hull ship at best. Customers don't care how fast the ship cruises, they only care about how fast their cargo arrives at the final destination. Once you factor in port time and intermodal transport, the hydrofoil advantage shrinks further. There could still be a market for hydrofoil cargo ships at the right price, but if so it's going to be really niche.
Hydrofoil ferries are still used in a few places but even those are falling out of favor. Low cost airlines killed a lot of the ferry market. And many of the remaining customers prefer larger, slower ferries which can also carry cars and trucks.
The US Navy abandoned hydrofoils because there's just no mission for them. They're only useful for coastal defense, and even for that mission aircraft are generally superior.
Hydrofoil ferries are still used in a few places but even those are falling out of favor. Low cost airlines killed a lot of the ferry market. And many of the remaining customers prefer larger, slower ferries which can also carry cars and trucks.
The US Navy abandoned hydrofoils because there's just no mission for them. They're only useful for coastal defense, and even for that mission aircraft are generally superior.
They're still used,
https://www.ferries.gr/en/ferry-companies/aegean-flying-dolp...
Comparatively tiny built in USSR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voskhod_(hydrofoil)
There is also the Boeing 929 Jetfoil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_929
There is also the Boeing 929 Jetfoil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_929
[deleted]
Hey Y'all - Ed Kearney, Boundary Layer Technology CEO here.
Love all the interest in the space!
Reason for the pivot was pretty much the market crash in 2022. Finding funding for this big plan was going to impossible. We found a massive demand to replace airfreight with small, fast, green ships. We just needed to build them!
So now we are going to start with a a vehicle that is small and fast to develop and build, prove the tech, build an amazing team, then keep going bigger. Fast first vs big first. Check it out - ridevalo.com (shameless plug lol)
Love all the interest in the space!
Reason for the pivot was pretty much the market crash in 2022. Finding funding for this big plan was going to impossible. We found a massive demand to replace airfreight with small, fast, green ships. We just needed to build them!
So now we are going to start with a a vehicle that is small and fast to develop and build, prove the tech, build an amazing team, then keep going bigger. Fast first vs big first. Check it out - ridevalo.com (shameless plug lol)
They are already being included on an experimental basis to cut fuel usage. Not 100% but double digit percentages are possible. There are a few solutions that can be retrofitted to existing ships relatively easy.
On heavy oil from other article of that blog:
Cargo ships are significant sources of air pollution globally, and their fuel oil is largely responsible. Pitch black and thick as molasses, “bunker” fuel is made from the dregs of the refining process. It’s also loaded with sulfur — the chemical that, when burned, produces noxious gases and fine particles that can harm human health and the environment, especially along highly trafficked areas.
wasn't there an effort to release sulfur burning products to reduce global temperature?
Yes, one of the paridoxical aspects of climate change is that due to different aspects of coal pollution side effects, coal use is a short term decline and then a long term rise in heat. So phasing out coal can give opposite signals to what you expect.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031210074720.h...
> More aerosols emitted into the atmosphere may lead to cooling," Allen continued. "But if these aerosols are able to combine with other compounds and ultimately form clouds, it could have a warming effect. There's a complex balance between warming and cooling."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031210074720.h...
> More aerosols emitted into the atmosphere may lead to cooling," Allen continued. "But if these aerosols are able to combine with other compounds and ultimately form clouds, it could have a warming effect. There's a complex balance between warming and cooling."
There are more ways to contribute to human health and the environment than just global warming. But in this particular case, where exactly the sulfur oxides are released makes a lot of difference. Burning it in the middle of a bustling port city has radically different effects than releasing it at 30 km altitude.
The IMO has required merchant ships to use either low-sulphur fuel or exhaust scrubbers since 2020 in order to reduce certain emissions.
Within the coastal zone they'll burn relatively clean fuel but as soon as they are out of national waters that junk gets burned. It's so thick that it needs to be pre-heated to be able to be injected.
Related, if you're interested in learning more about cargo ships:
"Ninety Percent of Everything" by Rose George
Exceptional, in-depth, dive on cargo shipping, and a bit about how insanely bad they are for the environment.
"Ninety Percent of Everything" by Rose George
Exceptional, in-depth, dive on cargo shipping, and a bit about how insanely bad they are for the environment.
One thing that is never addressed by these articles: How do the container cranes work around the sails? This would require big changes to ports. The CGI rendering of the ship in the article does not even make clear how the containers are put on and removed.
Sails are probably going to be most useful on ships that have relatively clear weather decks such as tankers, bulkers, and car carriers. Obviously it's impractical to install big sails / wings / rotors on a container ship due to cargo handing concerns, but they can use a kite type sail flown from the bow to get a little extra thrust when running downwind.
The proposed sails and rotors seem to be vertical. They could take up a few rows of containers. They could avoid cranes by being shorter than the cranes. Sails would need to stand above the containers to work so maybe they could retract in port.
Sails would take up a good chunk of container space. Maybe could do something like slide containers under the arch for sail.
Sails would take up a good chunk of container space. Maybe could do something like slide containers under the arch for sail.
And on other hand how are the sails attached to the ships. And how much extra weight would these structures add? To get usable power from a sail the forces must be quite substantial.
The ship in the article is a Ro-Ro car carrier. No cranes required so the optimal vessel to start with.
I’d expect you’d need to catch more wind than that to power something the size of a cargo ship.
The old sail vessels are basically all sail.
Are we violating conservation of energy here? Why or why not?
The old sail vessels are basically all sail.
Are we violating conservation of energy here? Why or why not?
As far as I could understood:
* These are wind-assisted ships, not 100% wind-powered ships. They save some (maybe quite some) fuel when the wind is favorable and the sails are engaged, and use conventional diesel power otherwise.
* Rigid surfaces make more efficient sails than soft fabric-based sails, so somehow smaller area is required.
* These are wind-assisted ships, not 100% wind-powered ships. They save some (maybe quite some) fuel when the wind is favorable and the sails are engaged, and use conventional diesel power otherwise.
* Rigid surfaces make more efficient sails than soft fabric-based sails, so somehow smaller area is required.
Conservation of energy is what makes it possible, once the ship is moving you keep drawing energy from the wind.
here’s a small windpowered boat sailing https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nr7g-03iclA
You can also use more powerful wind from high above the sea. This article is on using high altitude kites for power.
https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/sailing-into-h...
here’s a small windpowered boat sailing https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nr7g-03iclA
You can also use more powerful wind from high above the sea. This article is on using high altitude kites for power.
https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/sailing-into-h...
At low speeds does resistance to movement scale with turbulence/friction of surface area in contact with water rather than displaced volume? Bigger would then be better and need less and less power as a proportion to overall mass.
These folks are building a 250 metric tonnes capacity wooden sailing cargo vessel by hand: https://www.sailcargo.inc/en/ceiba
So it can carry about 0.05% of the cargo of a modern container ship, requires about as much crew, and takes longer to make deliveries. This is a cute little hobby project for someone but it's not a serious commercial venture.
Not to forget maintenance. Wooden ships are lot of work. After sometime you just keep replacing parts as they rot away...
Anything the size of these is never going to be wind powered: https://www.scf.com.au/news-articles/largest-shipping-contai... , the sails/foils required to get adequate propulsion would be impossible to maintain.
So at best this tech is going to be for relatively high-margin goods where shipping time is at a premium but not so prioritized as to spring for air transport. Like old-school clippers. Maybe there's a niche there, and I guess every little bit helps, but I imagine the total impact on climate change to be minimal.