Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSN)   Groundbreaking innovation promises to revolutionize the way we transport goods: sailboats   (msn.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

868 clicks; posted to STEM » on 19 Oct 2020 at 12:08 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



27 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
Juc
2020-10-19 12:12:56 PM  
I dunno if you'd really want to call those things sails.
I remember there being a few boats that were trying out these big tube thingies to power their boats by wind, although I think those were turbines of some sort.

Well anything to reduce the amount of oil they burn would help the world out quite a bit, and probably make things cheaper too.
 
2020-10-19 12:15:12 PM  
Who would think wings could generate a force from the wind?
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-19 12:15:33 PM  

Juc: I dunno if you'd really want to call those things sails.
I remember there being a few boats that were trying out these big tube thingies to power their boats by wind, although I think those were turbines of some sort.

Well anything to reduce the amount of oil they burn would help the world out quite a bit, and probably make things cheaper too.


If those things count as sails for America's Cup races, I think we can accept that as an authoritative opinion.
 
2020-10-19 12:25:29 PM  
Sails worked pretty damn well for upwards of 5 millennia, or that's as far as recorded history goes. Motorized ships were considered more cost-effective for a century or two, thanks to higher speed and independence of favorable wind, but now that people start accounting for the hidden cost of pollution that comes with fuel consumption, it may well be that sails become the more economic way to power a ship again - at least on routes where wind is somewhat reliable.
 
2020-10-19 12:37:08 PM  
12 days to cross the Atlantic when a bunker-fuel powered ship will take 10
A manufacturing cost probably 50% higher to procure the ship.

I like the idea, but I would guess the delivery fee per auto is likely to be almost double what current shipping charges. This is pure PR.
 
2020-10-19 12:46:29 PM  

madgonad: 12 days to cross the Atlantic when a bunker-fuel powered ship will take 10
A manufacturing cost probably 50% higher to procure the ship.

I like the idea, but I would guess the delivery fee per auto is likely to be almost double what current shipping charges. This is pure PR.


That may change once the cost of CO2 emissions is added to the fuel price, or when ships are required to install exhaust gas treatment. Fossil fuel is cheap only if you leave the cost of ecological damage for future generations to pay. It's increasingly looking like we've run up the tab about as high as it'll go before habitability of the planet takes a nose dive, and the generation that gets to pay up is us.
 
2020-10-19 12:47:34 PM  
An environmentally friendly way to ship cars is really missing the hugely obvious part of that problem.
 
2020-10-19 12:58:30 PM  

lobotomy survivor: madgonad: 12 days to cross the Atlantic when a bunker-fuel powered ship will take 10
A manufacturing cost probably 50% higher to procure the ship.

I like the idea, but I would guess the delivery fee per auto is likely to be almost double what current shipping charges. This is pure PR.

That may change once the cost of CO2 emissions is added to the fuel price, or when ships are required to install exhaust gas treatment. Fossil fuel is cheap only if you leave the cost of ecological damage for future generations to pay. It's increasingly looking like we've run up the tab about as high as it'll go before habitability of the planet takes a nose dive, and the generation that gets to pay up is us.


Since we don't have a global government that will never happen.
 
2020-10-19 1:10:34 PM  

Juc: I remember there being a few boats that were trying out these big tube thingies to power their boats by wind, although I think those were turbines of some sort.


Maersk Pelican
"Two Rotor Sails were installed in August 2018 and underwent testing and data analysis at sea until the end of 2019. Inpependent measurements conducted by Lloyd's Register confirmed savings of 8.2% during the first year of operation. Two Rotor Sails 30x5 are expected to reduce average fuel consumption on typical global shipping routes by 7-10%"
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-19 1:33:10 PM  
I assume they heat them during winter weather to avoid ice build up. if they haven't, they're in for a dynamic lesson in shifting CGs.
 
2020-10-19 1:33:36 PM  

lobotomy survivor: Sails worked pretty damn well for upwards of 5 millennia, or that's as far as recorded history goes. Motorized ships were considered more cost-effective for a century or two, thanks to higher speed and independence of favorable wind, but now that people start accounting for the hidden cost of pollution that comes with fuel consumption, it may well be that sails become the more economic way to power a ship again - at least on routes where wind is somewhat reliable.


During the 19th century, sails often combined with steam.  If you were hauling a load of coal, it didn't help to burn it all up before crossing the Atlantic.

Of course, both means were brutal on the crew, and most of the crew was considered expendable.

madgonad: 12 days to cross the Atlantic when a bunker-fuel powered ship will take 10
A manufacturing cost probably 50% higher to procure the ship.

I like the idea, but I would guess the delivery fee per auto is likely to be almost double what current shipping charges. This is pure PR.


That and it isn't like the shipping industry is short of ships.  That thing looks expensive (even if they didn't build it in Sweden).

madgonad: lobotomy survivor: madgonad: 12 days to cross the Atlantic when a bunker-fuel powered ship will take 10
A manufacturing cost probably 50% higher to procure the ship.

I like the idea, but I would guess the delivery fee per auto is likely to be almost double what current shipping charges. This is pure PR.

That may change once the cost of CO2 emissions is added to the fuel price, or when ships are required to install exhaust gas treatment. Fossil fuel is cheap only if you leave the cost of ecological damage for future generations to pay. It's increasingly looking like we've run up the tab about as high as it'll go before habitability of the planet takes a nose dive, and the generation that gets to pay up is us.

Since we don't have a global government that will never happen.


We effectively *do* have a global government.  It is just run by and for the corporations.  So this is even less likely to exist.  And by "global government", I mean enough treaties that limit tariffs and protect IP, no matter how insane the imaginary property laws.
 
2020-10-19 2:17:43 PM  

madgonad: 12 days to cross the Atlantic when a bunker-fuel powered ship will take 10
A manufacturing cost probably 50% higher to procure the ship.

I like the idea, but I would guess the delivery fee per auto is likely to be almost double what current shipping charges. This is pure PR.


More-honest estimates of their possible cross-Atlantic speed put it closer to an expected 17 days - and only from west to east, when following the winds.

East to west? Anywhere from 20 days to a month, according to the wind conditions. So not only is it smaller, it's massively slower. And it's still going to burn a fair amount of oil, because it has to be powered in port, and will need electrical power to run the ship's systems.
 
2020-10-19 2:30:28 PM  
Lot of space on those wings. I wonder if I've could generate solar power with all that surface area.
 
2020-10-19 2:39:00 PM  
So now it's reef and reef, me boys
with the canvas frozen hard
and it's mount and pass every mother's son
on a 90 foot tops'l yard
Never mind about boots and oilskins
but haul or you'll be damned
for there blows some cold nor'westers
on the Banks of Newfoundland......
 
2020-10-19 2:54:58 PM  

cirby: madgonad: 12 days to cross the Atlantic when a bunker-fuel powered ship will take 10
A manufacturing cost probably 50% higher to procure the ship.

I like the idea, but I would guess the delivery fee per auto is likely to be almost double what current shipping charges. This is pure PR.

More-honest estimates of their possible cross-Atlantic speed put it closer to an expected 17 days - and only from west to east, when following the winds.

East to west? Anywhere from 20 days to a month, according to the wind conditions. So not only is it smaller, it's massively slower. And it's still going to burn a fair amount of oil, because it has to be powered in port, and will need electrical power to run the ship's systems.


Think of it as an import tariff on german cars.
 
2020-10-19 3:49:34 PM  

cirby: East to west? Anywhere from 20 days to a month, according to the wind conditions.



Could be worse.   Could be 76 days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrift:​_​76_Days_Lost_At_Sea

/Just read that book.
 
2020-10-19 4:48:42 PM  

cirby: madgonad: 12 days to cross the Atlantic when a bunker-fuel powered ship will take 10
A manufacturing cost probably 50% higher to procure the ship.

I like the idea, but I would guess the delivery fee per auto is likely to be almost double what current shipping charges. This is pure PR.

More-honest estimates of their possible cross-Atlantic speed put it closer to an expected 17 days - and only from west to east, when following the winds.

East to west? Anywhere from 20 days to a month, according to the wind conditions. So not only is it smaller, it's massively slower. And it's still going to burn a fair amount of oil, because it has to be powered in port, and will need electrical power to run the ship's systems.


Correct, they would need to follow the trade winds / westerlies. That means tacking from south from the UK or across the Mediterranean down to the Canary Island, west across the Atlantic to the southern Caribbean, up the Gulf Stream and unload somewhere in the mid-Atlantic. Then a quick return up to Newfoundland and east to the UK.
 
2020-10-19 5:14:56 PM  

Barfmaker: An environmentally friendly way to ship cars is really missing the hugely obvious part of that problem.


Nah, a single container ship pollutes as much as a million cars, allegedly.
 
2020-10-19 5:22:05 PM  
Nice massive planes of surface area, it would be a real shame if someone were to put solar panels on them and supplement with electric motors during the day.

/Wait
//No it wouldn't
 
2020-10-19 5:28:53 PM  

SomeTexan: Barfmaker: An environmentally friendly way to ship cars is really missing the hugely obvious part of that problem.

Nah, a single container ship pollutes as much as a million cars, allegedly.


For sulfur pollution, probably.
 
2020-10-19 5:41:19 PM  
This is the future. Yes, the corporations don't want to internalize their externalities, but as things get more obviously messed up, they will not have a choice. Fossil fuels will be looked at like leaded gas and cigarettes in a few decades.

This is how we transition to a different way of doing things. Even if it doesn't work out, it's just the beginning of a new reality. We have to use the absolute minimum of fossil fuels, and this is a beginning.
 
2020-10-19 6:33:08 PM  

madgonad: SomeTexan: Barfmaker: An environmentally friendly way to ship cars is really missing the hugely obvious part of that problem.

Nah, a single container ship pollutes as much as a million cars, allegedly.

For sulfur pollution, probably.


And if we just had a million cars then this argument might be worth having, but we have 1.4 billion.
 
2020-10-19 6:46:42 PM  

Barfmaker: An environmentally friendly way to ship cars is really missing the hugely obvious part of that problem.


We can't fix it ALL, INSTANTLY, therefore it is USELESS to do ANYTHING!
 
2020-10-19 6:52:12 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: I assume they heat them during winter weather to avoid ice build up. if they haven't, they're in for a dynamic lesson in shifting CGs.


Include channels to collect the unfrozen fresh water and you also save on fresh water costs.

Include some sort of heat differential system to collect energy from the temperature differences between the top of the masts and their bases, for storage in some sort of storage system. Perhaps flywheels?
 
2020-10-19 8:40:14 PM  

ajgeek: Lot of space on those wings. I wonder if I've could generate solar power with all that surface area.


Those sails or wings probably bend a bit in the wind; the material can't be perfectly rigid. Crystalline solar cells (crystalline anything, really) farking hate bending. Bending is cracking. No bending allowed.

The wings/sails are also retractable like a telescopic antenna, so that the ship can clear bridges. Retracting adds more stress on the surface of the sails. Bad place for solar cells to be.

There are flexible PV cells, but their conversion efficiency sucks.
 
2020-10-19 10:19:59 PM  

Juc: I dunno if you'd really want to call those things sails.
I remember there being a few boats that were trying out these big tube thingies to power their boats by wind, although I think those were turbines of some sort.

Well anything to reduce the amount of oil they burn would help the world out quite a bit, and probably make things cheaper too.


Cousteau worked on that with the Alcyone. I actually got to board her several years ago in Marseille.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcyone​_​%28ship%29?wprov=sfla1
 
2020-10-19 11:36:14 PM  

lobotomy survivor: Sails worked pretty damn well for upwards of 5 millennia, or that's as far as recorded history goes. Motorized ships were considered more cost-effective for a century or two, thanks to higher speed and independence of favorable wind, but now that people start accounting for the hidden cost of pollution that comes with fuel consumption, it may well be that sails become the more economic way to power a ship again - at least on routes where wind is somewhat reliable.


"People are environmentally informed enough now that we think there will be customers willing to put their cars on a ship that goes roughly half as fast as today's ship, if we can make it carbon neutral," [Kuttenkeuler] says.

I think he's right.  But the "RoRo" car carriers design he's talking about is just one chunk of the oceanic freight haulers.  I could see tankers working with this design, but the rest are container ships that need / expect all the open deck to be stacked with cargo.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.