British wind power to drive Maersk container ship

Indeed. Fuel is now so expensive that nuclear ships are cheaper ...and they don't have to rely on the wind at all...Its all about not the technology, which is simple and well understood, but the issues of insurance and access to ports etc. etc.

While nuclear fusion has been around since a few seconds after the beginning of time.

Yes, but not *commercial* fusion. That's twenty years away yet, and has been for the last 75...

The following is translated from the Wikipedia entry in German, regarding the performance of the Barbara, and it suggests that the performance gains in normal operations of the ship was fairly modest:

Quote: On behalf of the German Reich Navy, the cargo ship was equipped with three Flettner rotors as auxiliary propulsion. During the trials, Barbara was operated by the shipping company in the Mediterranean service. Through these trials, Captain at Sea Walter Lohmann—who later became known through the Lohmann Affair—and the company’s inspector, Bruno Richter, established that the rotors generated an additional 440 kW of power at wind speeds of around Force 5 on the Beaufort scale.

Trial runs in winds of Force 4 to 6, with all engines running at full power, produced speeds of up to 13 knots. With one engine running in conjunction with the rotors, a speed of 9.5 to 10 knots was achieved. Under rotor power alone, a speed of 6 knots was still recorded.

The rotors were used for 30 to 40 percent of the voyage duration, during which an average increase in speed of 2 to 3 knots was recorded. During the trials, the rotors withstood severe weather of Force 10 to 12 and gave no cause for complaint, even while maneuvering or during cargo-handling operations.[1] Unquote

LOL :)

In fact all 'renewable' energy is just second or third hand fusion power.

Actually it may well finally be. But it's not germane. Fission is real, hear now technology and will last a lot longer than 75 years...

That doesn't suit the fossil fuel narrative though.

That's just nitpicking

I would argue tidal - based on "gravity" isn't. More to wind you up than from a position of principle though :)

And cheaper than HS2

Or the renewable one

But there is no 'fossil fuel narrative' in the UK.

Of course it is. What created the earth and moon and put them where they are?

Nuclear fusion

Aircraft can be cheaper than trains for sure

Quite. There was then no way to determine if it was commercial, since accountants would not be invented for another 13 billion years.

You think we've got problems?

Using the speed and power data given above, and noting that the Barbara had two 530kW MAN engines, it’s possible to derive two estimates of the power added by using the rotors.

Increasing the speed from the rotors-only 6kt to the 10kt of the rotors plus 530kW of engine power, gives a rotor power of 146kW.

Increasing the speed from 6 to 12kt by the addition of 1060kW, gives a rotor power of 150kW.

Increasing the speed from 10 to 12kt by the addition of the second engine’s

For a 13kt speed the rotors would have to supply 433kW.

The data suggests that a rotor system for a low-speed ship of modest size - Barbara was 2077 tons deadweight - rotors add a modest level of power in the right conditions, such as the wind being on the ship’s beam for a significant part of the voyage.

The modern rotor ship E-Ship 1 (10,500 tdw) has four 25m high x 4m diameter rotors plus 2 3.5MW diesels and under the optimal conditions the rotors can produce about 1-1.2MW, which isn’t usually available for the whole of a voyage.

They are selling some sort of investment product to insulate investors from government waste. (How would that work?) While the story could be true it could be completely fabricated. That doesn't seem to be illegal in America. Free speech and all that. Have you got any independent evidence about this alleged railroad scheme?

America had an "Underground Railroad" from the 1780s until the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. That must have been very hard to see.

I don't think there's any technical argument here. It's all still about money, really. Basically, do the rotors pay for themselves during their lifetime in fuel saving and any others (if the engines aren't running all the time, perhaps there will be a saving in servicing time intervals as well as the fuel costs)? If the answer is "yes" then they might well be installed. If it's "no", they won't. To the rotor capital and servicing costs should be added the time the ship is in dock to have them fitted, and so not making money. I would hope that the accountants have it all worked out.