You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
8 points

You underestimate the power of wind, stranger.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

So, I got that information from a different Lemmy comment, and on the spur of your contradiction I went looking myself. My search results are flooded with mostly useless news articles (they went to tell stories, not relay technical information). Regardless, the most ambitious claim I’ve seen is to reduce emissions by up to 90% for a ship design that can’t handle shipping containers and is about 1/4 the size of the largest ships being produced today.

Don’t get me wrong, I want this to happen. In fact, I would ban carbon-fuel shipping today, if I could make it happen. That being said, I don’t think we’ll ever get back to 100% wind power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

The sail kite project has had claims of up to 10% fuel savings for about 20 years, now.

It’s all moot when we should just be focusing on figuring out practical nuclear shipping. It’s the only way to meet or exceed our current standard and be carbon-free. The NS Savannah proved it could be profitable ages ago, and that without any economy of scale to reduce costs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They found out rhe hard way with the Ever Given

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Hmm i feel like there it was a case of working against the ocean whereas here I think it is working with the wind so it shouldn’t be THAT bad… but who knows…

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It was more a comment on the power of wind on a modern container ship.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

You underestimate the force of wetted surface area resistance. The sail area needed to move a modern cargo ship at the snail’s pace of old sailing ships would be unmanageably large. You simply couldn’t hold enough sail area to get them near their current speeds. These hybrid sail concepts are nice, but all they do is save some fuel.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The longer the ship, the more masts you can add, so the length doesn’t really matter. What would matter is the width, but I don’t see why the sail surface area couldn’t scale with the ship’s surface area. Sure, it would be a huge amount of sail, but it’s a huge amount of steel.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The resistance from the wetted surface area scales up a lot more quickly than the wind force does. You’d have to completely redesign the hull shape to try to compensate, significantly reducing internal cargo volume and still not getting the ship above a few knots of speed…

permalink
report
parent
reply

Funny: Home of the Haha

!funny@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We’re all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

Community stats

  • 5.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.3K

    Posts

  • 25K

    Comments