Nothing but CGI models. Surely a news agency as reputable as CNN can get the nomenclature right here?
It will be the world's largest wind-powered vessel once built in 2024.
A lot less than "being the world's largest wind powered vessel right now", but also a lot more than "just CGI"
On the other side, as someone who likes sailing boats of all kinds, it is just gorgeous. Imagine the seas populated by those great ships.
This is only kind-of true. Ship engines are dirtier in the sense that they produce worse NOx/SOx (causes of acid rain) and particulate matter (causes of haze and breathing issues). These issues are serious, but they have led to countless articles with very misleading headlines like "Big polluters: One massive container ship equals 50 million cars".
For global warming (CO2 and other greenhouse gases), shipping does create a decent fraction of emissions (~2% of manmade co2 emissions in 2018), but nowhere near what land-based transport creates (trucks+passenger cars put out roughly ten times what boats do ). Attempts to address the particulate/sox/nox has included LNG powered ships, which allow unburnt methane to escape, which results in worse GHG emissions (but less of the "emissions" that allow headlines like "shipping is as bad as 50 million cars!"). And if you look at a different statistic, ocean shipping of goods seems almost responsible (eg, ocean shipping has the lowest "CO2 per tonne per km", far lower than rail/truck shipping)
All that said, reducing GHG emissions from shipping is great and necessary. I hope this project works out.
> The global sulphur limit (outside SECA’s [SOx Emission Control Areas]) dropped from an allowed 3.5% sulphur in marine fuels to 0.5%.
> Over 170 countries have signed on to the changes, including the United States [https://www.imo.org/en/About/Membership/Pages/MemberStates.a...]
For wind you don't need mines, and extremely expensive storage facilities. For nuclear power you do.
Edit: obviously such a ship needs mining to get the metal to make such a ship, but so does a nuclear ship: after that, the wind-powered ship sails virtually for free forever, whereas the nuclear ship needs a small stream of plutonium in- and a small stream of highly "dirty" waste going out.
This is in fact why we abandoned sailing ships for merchant fleets: they run on the Sun's free nuclear fusion energy, but they are very inconvenient! So a modern sail ship will need to use its engine, and therefore I'm not sure they would be cleaner than a nuclear fission ship.
I‘m also pretty sure that even a sail ship will have fossile-powered backup generators. No one is going to design such a big ship with no additional backup power supply and certainly those aren’t just batteries.
I don’t understand why people here still keep coming up with arguments against nuclear when countries with a large share of nuclear in their energy mix have the lowest emissions in their energy sector.
Oh, and the waste isn’t really a problem. In fact, nuclear waste is one of the best types of waste.
The high SO2 pollution was because heavy fuel oil used in oceanic shipping could have a very high sulfur content, up to 4.5%. The global limit has been lowered to 0.5% this year. In designated Sulfur Emission Control Areas the limit has been lowered to 0.1% since 2015.
The sulfur dioxide emissions from shipping have been slashed since that Guardian article was written. Other air pollution from shipping was not greater than that from cars in the first place.
Install catalysators instead.
Edit: To everybody downvoting me here, it's easy to say that it's the best type of waste as long as it's somebody elses problem.
Not just geographical, as with most "NIMBY". But in time. It takes (tens of)thousands of years before it is no longer anyones problem. To put htat in perspective: if the egyptian Pharao's had decided to power their enterprice with nuclear power and store the waste "in a place up north where no-one lives", western europe would have large uninhabitable places - still.
It's less than 4.5% of CO2 emissions. Incredibly low good compared to the volume of goods and the benefits.
You can remove other pollutants with regulations. Requiring exhaust scrubbers or using other fuels has worked miracles in EU.
You can reduce CO2 emissions even more with slower speeds, thinner ship shape and cleaning the bottom of the ship regularly.
And the winds when coming from americas back to europe are often against you, which is likely to make the trip 50% longer. (Tacking longer distances)
When you take the upper c02 level forecast for this ship, and assume a more realistic 20-25 days for this ship.. suddently the c02 savings are only around 50 to 60%
Another thought is they can use the engine and the sails at the same time, possibly avoid long tacks but still getting fuel savings. I used to have a small sailboat with an inboard electric motor. You can do neat things with both available, the electric motor needs no warmup or startup and I could add a little push here or there if needed, or use both together.
Didn't think it looked like it would fit under the Houston Ship Channel bridge last month.
>Wind Power Breezes Back into Shipping with New RoRo Concept
On the other hand, a 650' cargo ship can handle a lot more weather than a 40' sailing sloop or catamaran, so perhaps sailing the North Atlantic is more feasible.
There is also a video showing the setup and operation. Released just two days ago...
KTH Royal Institute of Technology (Swedish: Kungliga Tekniska högskolan), abbreviated KTH, is a public research university in Stockholm, Sweden.
This extra 35,000 ton ship will be offset by saving 100 tons of CO2 per day (120 tons created by the diesel, minus ~20 tons created by the two sail ships). Is this worth it? How much CO2 does it take to build a 35,000 ton ship? And then of course the cost of a ship vs. diesel fuel.
Plus I presume the sail ships are now dependent on weather, which introduces logistical problems.
I suspect that coating the top of the diesel ship with solar panels and using the energy to supplement or replace the diesel engines might be a better use of resources?
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But if you keep replacing links of the supply chain with green alternatives, then it must eventually reach a point where you come out ahead. Eventually the energy for building ships will come from renewable sources.
Trying to tackle everything at once on the other hand may lead to paralysis.
Imagine having the sails be photovoltaic for them to become a dual-energy source themselves.
Plus you need more than two ships anyway, at least one for backup if not simultaneous return voyages.
You make good points, and I don't know the answer, but a meaningful comparison should indeed be made over the ship's entire lifetime, from manufacture to disposal.
As to fuel, the bunker fuel used by cargo vessels is really dirty.
While double the ships is more costly to procure, it’s more flexible and fault tolerant, so there are benefits!
Ultimately I think the question is, what is the price difference to transport a car, and if higher would customers pay more?
Personal transportation is a key driver of economic growth and prosperity. We should leverage technology to ensure that the cars that people need become ever more clean,
environmentally sustainable, and affordable.
According to the article, the equivalent ship would use 40 tons of fuel per day and cross the Atlantic in 7 days. Assuming this is bunker fuel at approximately $340/ton, the total savings would be $11200 USD.
With an added delay of 5 days, I can appreciate why this hasn't been attempted for purely economic reasons. Who knows what the actual costs and maintenance will add up to in the end?
The article does concentrate on CO2, but I suspect that’s not the real story here.
There might also be unexpected sweet spots for this kind of technology. Things that come to mind:
- shorter stretches where speed is a bit less of an issue
- promotional value for the brands transporting their goods this way
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_rotor & https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner-Rotor
The ship moves forward when the angle of attack is adjusted correctly. See the picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_sail#/media/File:Poin... The ship can't move directly against the wind, but it can close-haul 45 degrees against the wind assuming it has enough keel.
Is that a fundamental physical limitation, or would it be possible to come up with a design that allows moving directly against the wind (while being fully wind-powered).
(EDIT: ok, answering my own question: I guess you could anchor the ship and use a wind-turbine to charge a battery, then use that energy to move a bit, anchor again and repeat)
It's a sail. Being rigid instead of a piece of cloth doesn't change the basics of how it's working.
Some of the rest of the 14 parts air goes to burning the H atoms, which don't weigh much, and producing water. Most of it is nitrogen which isn't burned.
So for 40 tons of fuel with C4H10 you’ll get around 120-130 tons of CO2.
Once you do the math and convert from mol for each product to KG it more or less comes out right.
Hydrogen is 2 g/mol, Oxygen and Carbon are 16 and 12 respectively.
So you are essentially tripling the mass simply because you are adding a heavy molecule (oxygen) to the mix.
That's awfully close to the clearance under many bridges. The SF Bay bridge for example, which has to be crossed to reach the port of Oakland, has a clearance of 220 ft.
25 feet of difference is massive.
Hopefully this kind of design can be adapted to more ships and maybe even retrofitted to existing vessels.
One cable per car to its charging port - power can be transmitted in that direction too.
Edit: Quick reality check: About 500 MWh from the batteries. An oil-based ocean crossing of a similar sized vessel uses 280 tons oil, corresponding to about 3 GWh.
So, meh. Probably not worth all the hassle - the cabling, recharging the cars after the crossing, dealing with various extra fire risks, etc.
Edit: It will also become more feasible with energy density increases in batteries. I hope it's not entirely unrealistic to expect a doubling in the next 20 years.
I was first hoping the batteries could be used to reduce the extra crossing time (12 days vs 7 days for oil) significantly, but I'm guessing it would only reduce it by 0.5-1 day or so.
Damn you OneTrust! Why can't you just respect GDPR without needing to constantly invent new dark patterns?