Posted on 08/22/2023 2:02:22 PM PDT by nickcarraway
“...and we have the Polaroids to prove it.”
Explains why Polaroid went broke. Very common, though!
“I think there may be merit to using wind again, as an assist.”
Absoutely, but unless the wind can push them beyond 15 knots or so (as I remember it from my days in the MM), they won’t get much.
But, even so, if they can get some help for essentially no cost, then HAVE AT IT!
Wow a wind powered ship what a new idea !!!
Wait what were those sails for on ships for thousands on years ???
Arrg matey. Arrg. Slower ships for plunder...
One of the greatest disadvantages to the sails were when they hit those areas with no wind ... hence the term “dead in the water”. Better have some backup.
One of the greatest disadvantages to the sails were when they hit those areas with no wind ... hence the term “dead in the water”. Better have some backup. Maybe some solar panels that could power some fans to blow on the sails.
“ But, even so, if they can get some help for essentially no cost, then HAVE AT IT!”
Cost of sails???
Japanese coasters (coastal cargo vessels) were using wind assist propulsion 30-40 years ago. I forgot what % it saved in fuel but the number 14 just popped into my head. Or maybe that was the number of days in two weeks:)
I lived on an ex-NSSR search & rescue cutter in Stockholm. Brought her to the US via Arctic Ocean. Intent was to make L. Pepin in Peoples Republic of MN but stayed in FL instead.
“It makes sense to me.
1) It is voluntary
2) It is hybrid. Fall too far behind schedule (like reservation for Panama Canal (read up on the debacle)) and you use the engines
3) 2-tons of fuel per day is significant. I don’t give good damn about CO2 emissions, though a little about sulpher compounds.
4) as long as they allowed for interference with loading and unloading of cargo, and vertical draft in canals (bridges, etc)
Plus, I had warned the fuel company that I needed to calibrate my tanks’ sight gauges and wanted to pause refueling every 500 liters for 30 sec.
And then I get the bill. A LOT LESS Dane gold than I expected, but it was in x.xx metric tons of diesel!!!! Another damn conversion via TI calculator...”
mickey mouse...
and if they make any difference at all over the engine(s) they will only matter on down wind courses.
For commodities where there is absolutely no rush getting them to their destination (which is rarely if ever the case) this could make sense. But the slower shipping is going to be very costly, way more than a few dozen tons of fuel to move tens of thousands of tons of cargo.
As long as we get large cars with big block V8s and cute girls with no tattoos and piercings wearing tube tops, that’s ok. Hard pass on the “Jimmah” thing, though.
Excellent post!
How much fuel would this 750-foot ship use ordinarily? What percentage of daily fuel consumption is three tons? Or, looking at it another way, how far would three tons of fuel propel that ship?
Also, what do these sails cost, and how much heavy fuel oil will that amount of money buy?
“6 weeks vs 4 to 8 weeks.”
20 days = 2 weeks, 6 days
40 days = 5 weeks, 2 days
So sails would take anywhere from “twice as long” to “just longer than” a 100%-fuel-powered trip.
That “ton and a half” fuel savings is really gonna pay for itself.
I have an old Super 8 movie clip of Brian Williams on a maiden voyage.
Unless you were using Beatles time.
I see no mention as to sail freight made more practical and efficient due to modern GPS, internet, weather satellites and wind plots like Windy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.