Seems the retro fad continues - sail power

[The Natural Philosopher]

There is another issue apart from customer impatience, and that is simple economics.

the ship costs a certain amount of capital, and that is on usually a bond type loan from some big financial house, on a fixed rate of interest. The more cargo can be shifted per year, the more money there is to repay that bond. Conversely the faster you move the ship, the more fuel it burns per tonne mile, and so there exist some compromise that returns the best rate on capital.

On a nuclear ship, where fuel cost is so low its irrelevant, you want to go as fast as possible without placing undue wear on the propulsion system.

[The Natural Philosopher]

So you claim, but you quote no numbers.So just handwavey fluff until you do. People are romantically attached to sailing ships, windmills, toy railway sets - even big ones like Greater Anglia - but that doesn't mean they represent value for money, but it does give people the opportunity to sell you a green narrative where the reality is just greenwashing.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well no, it isn't, because there are only certain wind directions and speeds that will do anything and if you are going to spend as much fuel to find those winds, as the fuel you save by having them, the bloody things are no saving at all! And will increase journey times this lowering the ships ROI.

Np. Sorry. I think this is more greenwashing ecobollox.

[SteveW]

Why do I need to quote numbers? If it makes financial sense to a company, they'll go for it and if it doesn't they won't. Nowhere have I said that it is viable, just that it may be and those saying that sails simply can't work have closed minds and won't even consider it.

[SteveW]

Why can you not see that there "may" be advantage in sail assist. Ships would not be reliant on wind, just taking advantage of it where it helps. They would not go "finding" wind - that is the purpose of weather routing, they would be TOLD where wind was, strength and direction and DECIDE whether it was to their advantage to change their route. As for journey times, going a little faster, while using less fuel, does not mean taking more time.

I am not saying that it a wonderful solution, but it may turn out to make some difference. No-one is mandating it, but it is surely worth trying?

[Rod Speed]

And the reality is that no one does except with that cruise ship and that was only done to see if that would get green fools to use their cruise ship.

We know that it isnt because no one has been silly enough to do it except with that cruise ship,

They actually realise that it won't work and that no one has been silly enough to go that route except that cruise ship.

[Rod Speed]

Because its trivial to see that it can't work with a container ship and isnt even viable for a cruise ship.

Its trivial to see that it can't work with a container ship and isnt even viable for a cruise ship. Even with a cruise ship, where it is physically possible, the problem is that there will never be enough times where the sails will be useful given that the trip is always tightly scheduled booking wise etc Fuel use is in fact a trivial part of the cost of operation of a cruise ship.

The problem is that the pax on a cruise ship have chosen the trip they are interested in and would not be interested in going somewhere else just to save some fuel and it wouldnt even be possible to factor that fuel saving into the fare they have to pay up front.

The reality is that it would not in practice go a little faster with modern cruise ships.

It has been tried with that cruise ship and it turns out to not be a viable approach, that's why no one else, or even that operation, has done another.

It didnt even suck in more green stupids to cruise with them.

[RJH]

FSVO 'viable'. Not everyone thinks in terms of a positive financial return before they do what they do.

Related, plenty of media coverage of the polluting nature of cruise ships, for example. Sails, even a couple of fluttering handkerchiefs, might be a sales success.

[Rod Speed]

RJH [e-mail] wrote

Nope.

It isnt even viable in the sense of reduced CO2 emissions.

Turns out that it isnt.

[alan_m]

When you have 5000 people on board any pollution from the engines becomes insignificant :) However, gone are the days of throwing the rubbish over the sides but when in port the disposal of the trash from what is equivalent to a small town can become a problem.

[Paul]

OK, look at the atmospheric CO2 graph versus year, and show me the progress all this "relentless" reducing of CO2 has had.

We've made no progress at all. There is no hopeful deviation in the curve. None whatsoever. Could the progress show up in the year 2060 or 2080 or something ? No.

*******

This is plan B.

Paul

[Soup]

You seem to think the only reason not to burn fuel is its effect on the climate. What about when there is no fuel to burn (or at least no economicaly viable stuff)?

[Soup]

No idea. But I know ours didn't it was for a 'solar powered, liquid piston, stirling engined, irrigation pump'. We got it working in the lab but it was far to finicky for use in African villages (its intended area of operation). Still hear of villages using wee diesel generators running pumps or man/animal powered pumps or nothing at all "that land is useless".

>

[Andrew]

And 11+ billion people trying to use what is left

[Andrew]

It was Luddites like you who condemned the UK railway industry to carry on with ancient, filthy, inefficient steam engines while the rest of Europe was powering on with electrification and modern signalling systems.

Sometimes the best person to be in charge is someone who knows nothing, or very little, but is surrounded by people who do have the knowledge and can advise ALL the options and consequences.

[RJH]

Beg to differ. For example:

Plenty of academic research:

Electricity is also an issue for those that need to hook up. Etc.

Wretched things.

[alan_m]

Do you think that the countries with massive reserves of oil are going to give up this revenue stream? As more of the world turns to green technology oil will possibly become cheaper.

If there is no oil then the problem is going to be greater than transporting cargo across the world. No tyres for the green bicycles, no smooth surfaces for the cycle tracks, no soles and heels on shoes* etc. etc.

You cannot have alternatives such a leather because the herds of livestock generating greenhouse methane will all have been slaughtered long before the oil runs out.

[alan_m]

They will be busy cutting down all the trees planted in all the re-wilding schemes and all the trees planted as carbon offsetting :)

[alan_m]

More to do with zero money for investment after coming out of a expensive world war.

Also a common problem with the nationalised industries controlled by politicians and civil servants, and often with private industry where there is a monopoly supplier.

[Soup]

"Massive" reserves? Reality meet alan, alan meet reality No tyres for the green bicycles, no

You 'say' that like its a bad thing

Yup. If the Greenies have there way.