21–30 of 46 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can save up to 20% in fuel, you bet they would try it.
They won't, because the cost of fuel is passed to the shipper, not whoever owns the boat. If shell owned and operated their own boats, maybe, but I haven't seen that.
This is super cool, but until cargo vessels have any sort of restrictions on their carbon emissions, I hardly see this being adopted. We're on track to burn 500 million tonnes of Bunker oil by 2020 and the EU is just _proposing_ some sulfur and nitrogen reduction standards. Without any international restrictions or some other factor to increase the cost of operating, what incentive are companies going to have to adop…
It would be extremely ironic if this would be use by an oil tanker. Jokes aside, this is great, but it will never be the primary mode of propulsion since those tankers are on a timeline and you can't predict wind as much as a combustion engine.
Best is the enemy of good, and perfect is the enemy of possible.
Kind of a dumb question but I'll ask anyway. If the wind is blowing in the exact same direction as the ship is travelling and you begin to retract the sail - do you recoup some of the energy you use during this retraction process through increased pulling power of the sail? Is the ship being pulled a little stronger during the retraction process or the exact same amount as if the line wasn't being retracted? Im imagi…
If the wind speed isn't constant then you could save power by only reeling the kite in when the wind slacks off. If you felt especially proactive you could generate power by reeling it out during gusts then back in during lulls.
This is super cool, but until cargo vessels have any sort of restrictions on their carbon emissions, I hardly see this being adopted. We're on track to burn 500 million tonnes of Bunker oil by 2020 and the EU is just _proposing_ some sulfur and nitrogen reduction standards. Without any international restrictions or some other factor to increase the cost of operating, what incentive are companies going to have to adop…
Since half of your comment is plainly wrong, all I'll bother with is asking you to inform yourself. Here's a good start: http://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-20...
This is super cool, but until cargo vessels have any sort of restrictions on their carbon emissions, I hardly see this being adopted. We're on track to burn 500 million tonnes of Bunker oil by 2020 and the EU is just _proposing_ some sulfur and nitrogen reduction standards. Without any international restrictions or some other factor to increase the cost of operating, what incentive are companies going to have to adop…
Because it would save money, presumably. For example, in a 10,000 ton boat: "While the kite was in use, the ship saved an estimated 10-15% fuel, $1,000 to $1,500 per day." (From the linked article)
Kind of a dumb question but I'll ask anyway. If the wind is blowing in the exact same direction as the ship is travelling and you begin to retract the sail - do you recoup some of the energy you use during this retraction process through increased pulling power of the sail? Is the ship being pulled a little stronger during the retraction process or the exact same amount as if the line wasn't being retracted? Im imagi…
You basically let the kite fall, then use its pull to generate energy and make it soar, then let it fall again..
"There’s a structural problem slowing down the process: ship owners (who have to make the investment) often don’t pay for the fuel – that’s the charterer’s duty. The charterer on the other side doesn’t charter the ship for long enough a period to make low-carbon technologies pay back"
I know bugger all about shipping but this doesn't seem logical. Wouldn't the person hiring said boat look at the estimated fuel cost as part of their cost/quote? If they know a ship has this or other effeciency features it should become part of their pricing comparison to alternate ships.
They said a limitation in addition is; "There’s a structural problem slowing down the process: ship owners (who have to make the investment) often don’t pay for the fuel – that’s the charterer’s duty. The charterer on the other side doesn’t charter the ship for long enough a period to make low-carbon technologies pay back" I know bugger all about shipping but this doesn't seem logical. Wouldn't the person hiring said…