
Future sailors: what will ships look like in 30 years? - okhan
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/03/future-sailors-what-will-ships-look-like-in-30-years
======
krschultz
As someone that has designed (military) ships, here are my thoughts.

\- LNG is definitely happening, and that alone will make a massive difference
in emissions.

\- No shit smoother bottoms and bulbous bows are better for efficiency, that's
been standard practice for decades and large cargo ships are generally not
that old.

\- Counter rotating props are interesting, I could see that being a big win
but the mechanical complexity might not be worth it. Cargo ships are generally
kept pretty simple for reliability.

\- I doubt we'll see widespread wind or solar power any time soon. The
dynamics of wind turbines on top of a pitching platform get pretty wild quick.
The energy density of solar doesn't seem high enough.

\- Lol, get the fuck out of here with the idea of nuclear power for cargo
ships. The US Navy doesn't even bother with that complexity for anything other
than subs & carriers where it's the only viable option.

~~~
forapurpose
> LNG is definitely happening, and that alone will make a massive difference
> in emissions

An important, if often repeated point: Natural gas reduces emissions at the
point of consumption; that may be balanced out by higher climate change impact
when it's mined.

If someone has good, conclusive information on that issue, it would be
appreciated.

~~~
brandmeyer
People mean different things whey they talk about emissions. Shipping is
particularly dirty because of the low-grade fuel that they've been using. Its
very high in sulphur content, and typically contains a higher fraction of
heavier compounds that don't burn as well.

So the ships produce more unburned hydrocarbons (smog precursors) and sulphur
oxides (acid rain precursors).

So even if the total CO2 emissions are similar, the other toxics are still
greatly reduced.

~~~
tajen
So... can we produce LNG without producing Diesel? I thought crude oil
mandated the proportion, and it was a “good thing” that we found some
opportunities to consume the Diesel part? We can’t convert the whole world to
LNG because we’ll have way too much Diesel left.

~~~
D_Alex
We can produce natural gas, thence LNG, from natural gas reservoirs, which
contain very little liquids. Eg. coal seam gas can be 95%+ methane, and
essentially zero diesel.

------
gk1
I'm excited but skeptical.

Energy-saving concepts have been around for a long, long time. For example, I
first heard about the use of kites[1] over a decade ago, yet the company that
makes them is struggling to stay afloat.

The issue is that commercial ships are _very_ expensive to build, even using
parametric design — where you basically plug in your desired cargo capacity
and get a complete blueprint in return. Also, margins for shipyards are razor-
thin, so they need to keep production _very_ consistent and predictable in
order to stay profitable. So there is not much incentive for either shipyards
or shipping companies to build ships that deviate from the standard, cookie-
cutter designs.

Maybe the upcoming regulation will provide the necessary incentives, but even
then it will take several decades for the majority of ships—which have a
lifespan of 40+ years—to be replaced with the next generation.

(Former naval architect and merchant mariner.)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails)

Edit: Maybe what's needed is an Elon Musk for shipping. Someone with the
resources and guts to take a big gamble on a new technology in an industry
that otherwise moves at a crawl.

~~~
killjoywashere
And, I have to say, as a navy surface officer, I don't see how much of any of
this is going to change the sailor's life. Living on a working ship is a bit
like being a mouse on the deck of a lawnmower. For all intents and purposes,
you're in the machine, and it will kill you.

~~~
forapurpose
> I don't see how much of any of this is going to change the sailor's life

While sailors' lives are important in themselves, what do you see as the
connection to the issue at hand, reducing climate change impact?

> it will kill you

Every sailor dies? I don't understand what you're getting at.

~~~
brandmeyer
>> it will kill you

> Every sailor dies? I don't understand what you're getting at.

He means that life at sea is one of managed risk. For starters the ocean
itself is hostile to human life. The machine is is also filled with hazards
that will kill you if they aren't properly managed: steam, ionizing radiation,
CO and CO2 build-up, combustion exhaust gasses, high pressure hydraulics,
seawater flooding, electric shock and electrolysis hazards, rotating machinery
hazards, the list goes on.

------
tzs
A lot of ship cargo consists of things that (1) we need a steady supply of,
and (2) have a very long shelf life. For such cargo it doesn't matter how long
the transit time for any particular shipment is, as long as shipments are
arriving at the destination often enough.

I wonder if we could make unmanned cargo boats that spend most of their time
drifting?

Drifting can be quite effective at long distance ocean transport. For an
example look at the Friendly Floatees accident [1]. A ship accidentally lost
29 000 floating bath toys in the middle of the Pacific. Over the next 15 years
they reached land in on both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of North America,
the Pacific coast of South America, Australia, and Europe, and came close to
Japan.

I'm imagining a ship that drifts, occasionally using an engine to get into
known currents that will help it toward its goal or avoid currents known to
hurt.

Places where two or more significant currents pass through the same region
could be used to route traffic. They could have tow ships stationed there that
can move drifters between the currents

We could have a large fleet of such drift ships carrying suitable commodities
with very little environmental impact, with a smaller fleet of normal cargo
ships providing fast transport to fill in the gaps caused by the randomness of
the drifting fleet arrivals.

The above idea is based on the proposals I've seen to do something similar in
space. Briefly, there are orbits that can move an object from Lagrange points
of one pair of bodies to Lagrange points of another pair using very little
energy, but they can take a very long time.

The proposals are to start using those to regularly send supply ships to
various moons and planets that we think we may want to send humans to later.
Suppose the path to some particular moon takes 30 years. If we start sending
supply ships down that path now, sending one every 6 months, say, then 30
years from now they start arriving. Then we can send the humans. The ship with
the humans only needs to take enough supplies for the trip out, making the
trip much more feasible.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_Floatees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_Floatees)

------
Drdrdrq
What I'm waiting for is for foils to become useful. It doesn't make sense to
(only) replace energy source, drag should be minimized too. Admittedly it will
take a long time for technology to be ready for these huge ships though.

~~~
krschultz
Hydrofoils are generally higher drag at low speed, they only make sense when
you want to go faster than displacement speed. That doesn't make sense for
most cargo, anything time sensitive is going by air.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
There is a large gap in price and performance between 15-knot container ships
and 500-knot aircraft. The former costs $0.1 per ton and takes months (7+37+7
day cargo transit), the later costs $5 per ton and does it in less than a day.

There are already lots of hydrofoil passenger ferries where passengers pay a
lot less than a plane ticket but more than a slow monohull ferry ticket to get
to a destination a bit more quickly.

On land, you might send something across the country at 60 mph on a truck for
$0.4 per ton if you don't want to wait for rail or pay for air, but as far as
I know, no such middle ground exists for ocean freight.

There are certainly customers who can't afford and don't need next-day air,
but would pay more to get components in perhaps 5 days (60 mph hydrofoil, 6000
mile Pacific crossing, plus a day to load/unload) instead of 5-8 weeks, if
there was a business that catered to that.

~~~
krschultz
I see what you're saying, and I think that's why more cargo is moving by rail
in Asia. If it was sold as a premium service it might work, but I have no idea
how big that market really is when you are talking about crossing whole
oceans.

------
Gravityloss
The following contains simplifications.

The shipping sector is squeezed by regulations and fuel prices. If you burn a
tonne per hour and it costs a thousand bucks, thats about 8 million bucks per
year. If oil price goes up, shipping gets more expensive. Those with newer
more efficient or alternative fuel using ships get hit less.

If oil price goes down, it is the opposite.

Regulations need to be predictable. Ship building projects take a long time.
If you can be sure that your fuel costs will be high in the future, an
investment in better efficiency will pay itself back in a shorter time.

------
rs999gti
Maybe nuclear power for commercial ships?

Global navies have proved and refined nuclear power technology for their
ships.

Why not apply this technology to the commercial sector, instead of carrying
gallons of diesel?

~~~
wil421
So pirates will be able to steal nuclear material? What happens if a container
sinks near a popular beach? I doubt people want these kinds of risks.

I’d expect gas and diesel to be used for airplanes and ships for a long long
time.

~~~
rs999gti
>So pirates will be able to steal nuclear material?

Why couldn't private security be part of international freight? The costs for
this security could be added to freight costs.

For example, Russian private security contractors successfully protected ships
near Somalia -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XJ0nblZjZE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XJ0nblZjZE)

>What happens if a container sinks near a popular beach? I doubt people want
these kinds of risks.

Governmental navies don't experience these risks? Also, read this section
about liabilities for private nuclear reactors:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion#Civi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion#Civil_liability)

~~~
wil421
Private security is not a guarantee and someone could always send a suicide
bomber. It happened a few times to US navy ships it would probably be easier
to do to commercial ships.

------
ryanmarsh
Much like they look now. You might call ship designs a local maxima but the
physics aren’t going to change any time soon.

------
stereocodes
no one, even from the military posters, mentioned the new salt water engines
that are in development? [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/seawater-
to-fuel-n...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/seawater-to-fuel-navy-
vessels-_n_5113822.html)

~~~
ape4
Cool. But only for jet fuel. ie for air craft carriers.

------
sdhgaiojfsa
Anticipated by Paolo Bacigalupi in Ship Breaker. Great book if you're looking
for some semi-dystopian SF.

------
ape4
Seems sensible to have some solar panels. Even to make power for living
quarters.

------
assface
The Mighty Boosh - Future Sailors

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAbkh4TMRqg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAbkh4TMRqg)

~~~
ocodia
“Digital stowaway!”

------
carwyn
Surely the most effective way of improving shipping efficiency is to stop
shipping as much? The principal of locality can be applied to far more than
memory architectures.

~~~
rs999gti
This could be done but it would probably kill or slow technological progress
and economies.

For example, China is extremely good at manufacturing, Japan and South Korea
are great at electronics manufacturing, Germany engineering disciplines, etc,
etc. North America could do this but everything would be very expensive or
impossible to source locally.

Also, what about food? Do you enjoy coffee? Well it got to North America on a
ship. How about bananas? Same thing, that tropical fruit's year round
availability is due to shipping logistics. The same thing applies to most
"everyday" goods like chocolate, transistors, cotton, etc, etc.

Also, going back to China, they don't only manufacture cheap goods to be
shipped to Wal-Mart. They are also a major farming and agriculture producer.

------
vvpan
Well, we could also shop at the thrift shop a little more often. Disposable
cheap crap is central to Western culture.

------
foreigner
I love how the concept sailing ships look nothing at all like traditional
sailing craft. Turns out that we have over a thousand years of experience
designing and operating sailing cargo craft - maybe it wouldn't hurt to look
at some of the older designs guys?

~~~
jhayward
Have you taken a look at what designers do when they have access to modern
materials and control systems? They don't design Triremes, for good reason.

Have a gander at the America's Cup boats, for instance.

~~~
foreigner
Sure but compare America's Cup boats with that atrocity pictured at the top of
the article!

