

Modern cargo ships slow to the speed of the sailing clippers - stfu
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/25/slow-ships-cut-greenhouse-emissions

======
tsotha
From what I understand, part of the reason for this trend is an excess of
cargo ships. As a shipper it doesn't pay to rush cargo from one place to
another if you have empty ships doing nothing.

But I doubt this will continue. The reason is the _customers_ don't like it.
If I have a billion dollars travelling from Shanghai to LA I want it to get
there quickly so I can sell my product and use that billion for something
else. This is why much-more-efficient-but-slower airships could never compete
with airplanes.

------
jjindev
It was amazing what a big sailing ship could do on a downwind course and with
good weather (which for them was storms in the right direction).

The standard deviation in speed would be high, and not all destinations could
be managed on downwind courses.

All that said, the length of time the Cutty Sark held its speed record was
amazing and inspiring. IIRC it took modern multi-hulls to beat it (sailing).

------
igul222
> Travel times between the US and China, or between Australia and Europe, are
> now comparable to those of the great age of sail in the 19th century.

If this is true, why don't we all just use sailing ships, which require no
fuel and produce no emissions?

~~~
pogden
They still have to pay the sailors. The Cutty Sark had a capacity of 1,700
tons and a minimum complement of 28 [1]. By contrast Emma Maersk can carry
154,000 with only 13 Sailors [2]. The fuel savings are probably not worth ~200
times higher labor costs.

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

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_M%C3%A6rsk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_M%C3%A6rsk)

