Is Wind Power The Future of Shipping?

[@Shawn_White]

Is wind power the future of shipping? So we've come full circle then.

[@monad_tcp]

the answer is still no

[@aymanayman5603]

ah hear we go again

[@Vetyhhhh]

@@monad_tcp hybrids are the way

[@hp2084]

@@Vetyhhhh 3% is not hybrid and if these systems take 10% of the cargo space and save 3% fuel then no one is going to implement these. Simple.

[@Vetyhhhh]

@@hp2084 yes now right now, will see when time goes on

[@carlofthekey7288]

Sails: "You could not live with your failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me."

[@1stdaybreaker707]

I was looking for this comment

[@houraisanproductions5879]

@@1stdaybreaker707 same

[@astericks53]

BRO I CLICKED ON THIS VIDEO JUST TO SAY THIS 😂

[@ges105sb6]

F**k i just made the same comment now people will think i stole it and i have to delete it

[@ges105sb6]

@@astericks53 yo same

[@onewhostudies6856]

Are feet the future of walking?

[@mattevans4377]

It'd be more like walking to work instead of cycling.

[@gunlokman]

Don't tell the government. They'll set up an expensive 'working party' to investigate!

[@lylestavast7652]

don't worry, there'll be a subsidy for sox.

[@mikecorleone6797]

Ran out of gas once on my 28 foot bayliner so i hung up a king size bed sheet between my outriggers straight up and still managed to get close enough to the channel to moor off and take the kayak in with a gas can to get back on track.. the wind got me going about 4-5 knots which I thought was pretty cool for a make shift sail

[@ananda_miaoyin]

Wow. 4-5 knots on a 28 footer is banging! Nice work!

[@pontuswendt2486]

Interesting!!!

[@griffenthedog]

unless ya bed wear tuff nuff to handle 40kts wlda been tide mate

[@arktseytlin]

nice job, most powerboaters would just ask for tow

[@mikecorleone6797]

@@arktseytlin vessel assist was about 2 hours away and i was maybe 15-20 minutes away from being a beached boat.. bush fix for the win

[@sarcasmo57]

I have pulled my 3 man canoe along with a kite before. Good fun and very fast.

[@jmbpinto73]

It seems a kite can be retrofited to any existing vessel with minor adjustments.

[@joistein]

I was a truck driver and one time after i dumped sand from a trailer the wind was blowing from the behind and the truck begun to move, the truck and the trailer are about 14.3 tons 😲😉

[@norgepalm7315]

@@joistein I too, was also a truck driver. Keyword is 'was'. Similar situation happened to me, but without any real wind. Turns out I was on a hill.

[@joewilson2258]

With a strong wind I can see that happening but as you should know the wind is unpredictable even within a few hours .

[@allanfarr]

A ship weights 900 million pounds. Sure maybe it can help but not consistently push the ship along for thousands of miles

[@ianlourenco4811]

"wind powered boats are the future of sailing" that's, called sailboats.

[@nukedukem6]

Technically, they don't have sails though, that's like saying lava isn't wet because it's hot.

[@ianlourenco4811]

@@nukedukem6 aight gotcha

[@birisuandrei2866]

Lol

[@TheStuartstardust]

Blade boats then? As foil boats is used already..

[@Gugner]

Yes...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@gormauslander]

4:22 this has actually been true for all sail powered boats for as long as we have sailed. Sailors want a side wind more than a tail wind. If the wind is blowing behind you to the front of the ship, then the faster you go, the slower the wind is relative to your sail (if you're going 20 mph and the wind is 30 mph behind you, it loses speed catching up to you and hits the sail at 10 mph). your ship will not get any faster as soon as the wind hitting the sail is too slow to overcome the friction. If the wind is hitting the side of your ship and you use the sails to deflect it backwards, you could be moving at 50 mph and you will still have wind hit the sail at 30 mph.

[@seraphina985]

That and for larger vessels with sails on multiple masts the sails will start to get in the way of each other if the wind aligns too closely with the heading of the ship, in the extreme case of having the wind coming from directly behind you then you would effectively lose the use of all but the aft sails as the others get basically no wind due to the aft sails being in the way. Sure some moving air would probably get through/around the aft sails but it would be slowed significantly reducing the efficiency of the sails forward of it.

[@gormauslander]

@@seraphina985 yep

[@Froggability]

Sailing beam reach also means you can return just as easily, however most long distance are confounded by head winds, doldrums and so on, the equator is almost useless under sail

[@xiro6]

maybe its easyer today to use the "sails" as generators instead of propulsion.again having to say hydrogen.On route,use the electricity directly at propulsion,and when at port or outside waiting to enter they can generate hydrogen to use it on the propulsion system if they have electric propulsion,and using the hydrogen on the "old school" generator.there are natural gas powered cargo ships yet. on the crazy brainstorming,i can imagine a company having some surplus ships,without work for them,and instead of placing them in some random bay,placing them in a high wind area,coming to land as they get the tanks full to sell the hydrogen.hahaha. OMG,imagine all of that crazy amount of ships that are rusting in singapore due to lack of cargo,producing hydrogen. mothership.sg/2016/05/waters-around-spore-turned-into-parking-lot-for-oil-tankers/

[@MDP1702]

@@xiro6 But hydrogen production is highly inefficient, I don't really see how this would be economical.

[@arvadawelder]

3 percent isnt as bad when you think about how many tons of freight a ship can move.

[@leerman22]

They also burn heavy petrochemicals we typically don't want to use anyways. Better to do useful work with them than burn them in a flame tower.

[@toddpod7581]

The tall Masts from the sailing gear will interfere with loading cranes and bridges.

[@lickmytoaster9550]

True but no one was saying that shipping is bad, he just said it makes up a certain amount of global emissions and we could make shipping itself (already an extremely efficient way of moving lots of freight) more efficient.

[@noahderrington5156]

Every percent of global Co2 matters a great deal if we have any chance of dealing with catastrophic climate change.

[@cjhification]

18-30% of NOx emissions paints a far worse picture though, also believe they are responsible for even higher levels of PM2.5 emissions as a percentage (the particles that really muck up your lungs).

[@svenkleinplarre9461]

Yes, shipping industry is good and all, but hear me out. Pirates. We need to bring north atlantic pirates back.

[@kanimclean7597]

Anyone want to move to Greenland with me?

[@deankruse2891]

I will head up the pacific division

[@MrShwaggins]

Just tell the somalis you can pirate there. But they will be using AK's and RPGs not blunderbusses and hook hands. Not as romantic IMO

[@kanimclean7597]

@@MrShwaggins thats a lot of gas money for them

[@sdprz7893]

*Somalis have entered the chat*

[@tomkelly8827]

The kite sails look promising to me, the other ones do not, mainly because of how they effect the space on board the ship and also their short height. The kite needs no electricity or batteries, no rare earths. It can work in tandem with diesel engines seamlessly. Just add more kites to reduce energy consumption further, reel them in for storms, land and unfavourable winds. It looks to me like it would pay for itself easily while the others look too expensive, complicated and unsuited to the needs and limitations of large ships

[@c182SkylaneRG]

Even better, we can erect a large frame at the front and back of the ship and use that to hold a much larger kite, which can catch more air. If you rotate the frames, you can move sideways to the direction of the wind, so you can travel in the direction closest to your eventual destination. I call my invention "sails". :D

[@TitoRigatoni]

@@c182SkylaneRG I think you missed the whole *sails take up way too much space on the cargo deck* part of the conversation.

[@c182SkylaneRG]

@@TitoRigatoni Technically didn't watch the video, but if you put them at the very front and very back of the ship, you can leave the center area wide open for cargo. We've got better materials technology, these days, that will allow for placing the main-masts at the extreme ends rather than dead-center, and still be able to securely anchor them. Will the ship make good speed? Hell no. But it'll move with the power of the wind in an age where we've run out of fossil fuels.

[@necrid7329]

skysails have utterly failed. They are to complex to operate and most of the time not even usable. Beluga used them mainly for publicity. and to put this in a timeframe, beluga has been out of Business for almost ten years. Flettner rotors are at least somewhat usable, since they are easy to operate and on many ships deckspace is not utilised or possible to utlilise. Bulkers would be well suited, sadly for tankers thats not possible for now due to the danger of electrostatic accumulation. I was somewhat involved with the FEHN POLLUX Project thats still going well. But the main Problem still stands, as long as Time and Bareboat Charter Contracts dont shift the fuelcost to the owners, its not really usefull, especially since most Shipping companies that acctually own their own ships and run them as well are container carriers

[@vbiruk]

Tom Kelly Do you have engineering education ? ))

[@dewiz9596]

In my view, the biggest problem with wind powered ships is “Just in time delivery systems”. For that, material has to get there quickly. But other things, such as oil, ores, etc, could be considered as being on a conveyer belt system. . . Wind Powered ships would fill this requirement very well. The irony, of course, is “Oil”.

[@tobybrown1179]

Every country go back to manufacturing, stop globalization. Simple

[@RENO_K]

@@tobybrown1179 it's not that simple, some country are poorer in other material than others, imagine country A can't make their own bread, county B makes too much bread, ofc they have to buy bread from country B, country B can't make their own clothes, but county A makes more clothes than they need, so country B buys clothes from country A, ofc it's hugely simplified, but use ur imagination a bit

[@tobybrown1179]

@@RENO_K well mate, Australia produces or manufactures very little now days. Our politicians have sold us out, we’re stuffed and have our last oil refinery destined to close, that’s what I’m on about that when war breaks out in 2 years time and the ships stop coming we will be stuffed

[@cabbage4994]

@@tobybrown1179 yeah, but manufacturing all of your own country’s goods are nearly impossible.

[@acid360delta7]

@Sony Pony Sounds like a local government problem, not a manufacturing one. Zimbabwe was once the farming haven of Africa, then the government took the lands away from the white farmers, and gave them to inexperienced black farmers, which led to the country being in debt and having food shortages that continue to this day.

[@williamreymond2669]

Its an interesting mathematical symmetry the best that can be done with auxiliary wind powered cargo vessels is about a 10% reduction in fuel consumption, but with a competitive purely wind powered vessel you would need ten times more vessels. Things don't always scale linearly. Surface area of a sail is what generates lift/thrust. the volume, mass, and surface area of hull is what generates both drag and revenue. That square is not easy to circle. What few people realize - people who are not sailors - is that being able to quickly reduce you 'sailing' capacity is crucial for success because the worlds oceans are full of huge storms that travel much faster than even if you and if you miss the worst burnt of these storms, they can still destroy you 'sailing' equipment, maybe even your vessel. Not good. Even during the day of the 'windjammmers' the largest, and last, of the pure wind powered cargo vessels the could only economically carry bulk cargoes over long enough distances that other ships were uneconomical: cotton from Australia, lumber, coal. petroleum oil & etc. The ultimate problem is a cube-square law problem driving an energy density problem. Past a certain - a very small size by contemporary standards - vessels cannot be powered purely by wind and keep up. Its an interesting mathematical symmetry the best that can be done with auxiliary wind powered cargo vessels is about a 10% reduction in fuel consumption, but with a competitive purely wind powered vessel you would need ten times more vessels.

[@carlosandleon]

Simple Solution, just install a huge fan.

[@carlosandleon]

@SAMUEL NAUMETS Biodiesel.

[@carlosandleon]

@G Petro but you need electrolysis to take HHO from water. Your new fuel will not yield more energy than you put into it in the first place.

[@carlosandleon]

@G Petro its mass would stay the same, you'd have to spend more energy for forward thrust i guess.

[@heshanwithanaarachchi4070]

@G Petro my friend you have to work onboard a ship to know how much profit driven are ship owners and charterers. They will never even think of such expensive solutions or at least for the mainstream use. Right now the best solution is LNG powered ships.

[@lunarossa94]

Aero engineer here. Although you are right to be skeptical of the 90% claim, you need to take into account that lift is directly proportional to wing area. When you compare the beluga to the single kite solution, there is an evident difference in overall lifting surface area. Also when compared to the Magnus effect 'sails', which furthermore depend on rotation speed for lift production. It is not far-fetched that based on these principals that conceptually, a solution with a large collective area of aerofoils would outperform the other two solutions maybe even by a large amount. The problem with this solution is the difficulty to implement a mixed system and also the cargo reduction due to the huge design footprint. Remember that sailboats can do it with no powered propulsion!

[@christianpadilla9745]

people who work hard to make informative / intriguing content deserve the best, aka u

[@mileswheeler9114]

ANOTHER great video! Awesome job man. I feel like I also saw the same headlines and wondered the same thing. Thanks for diving in deeper to this. Keep up the great work!

[@JustAnAnonymousViewer]

Wind powered shipping? I was a guest at one of Lord Hattherington's little social gatherings last month and there was rumour of a gentleman in London designing a steam powered vessel. Imagine! These are indeed such frighteningly modern times.

[@ManuelBTC21]

5:05 "Ship owners who pay for the investment, often don't pay for the fule as that's the charters duty". The ship owner is already in the business of owning an expensive asset that pays for itself over time. If they can offer more favourable fuel consumption rate, I would assume they would adopt it.

[@SD-tj5dh]

The French ship energy observer used 'oceanwings' to pull it along, then using the electric propulsion motors to charge its hydrogen fuel cells from the sea.

[@oldbatwit5102]

I remember all this, from 50 years ago. I wonder where they get these 'new' ideas from?

[@hurri7720]

It's more about new material and technology for rather old ideas, a bit like with Jules Verne and his moon rocket from 1865. It took some time for the technology to catch up.

[@oldbatwit5102]

@@hurri7720 I understand what you mean though I didn't see any new materials or new technology here. For example... a ship called the Buckau crossed the Atlantic in 1926 using a Magnus rotor and these have been trialled on large ships many times since then. I wouldn't compare this with Jules Verne since there weren't any large rockets in operation then, it was all just fiction.

[@hurri7720]

@@oldbatwit5102 , I understand what you mean too but there is carbon fibre and compuers and a lot of stuff since the good old times. Try this for instance: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b6XYhX6epryNqdE One of the ferries between Finland and Sweden has one of those rotors to save some money and give more data about it.

[@oldbatwit5102]

@@hurri7720 50 years ago we already had computers and large glass-fibre constructs on ships, including magnus rotors. Magnus rotors are still made of glass-fibre today because using carbon fibre would be ridiculously expensive. Perhaps you might do a little research into how things are constructed of carbon fibre, then you will understand why it is mainly used for smaller components, smaller builds.

[@hurri7720]

@@oldbatwit5102 ,well lets leave at this, I look further back than 50 years and so did you with "a ship called the Buckau crossed the Atlantic in 1926".

[@vasoscharitantis]

I enjoyed your presentation. To the point. Keep on researching and sharing your thoughts and concerns!

[@BlackBuck777]

I feel old now. Have a look at Walker Wingsail, way before its time

[@CapWalks1]

My thesis was on this topic back in 1979. Then, the cost of fuel was the issue, not reducing emissions. At that time, there were a few lumber ships using tall metal foil sail mounted on the focsle.

[@krxknz]

Not gonna lie, you sounded like a minecraft youtuber called "Wilbur Soot".

[@Syamiloais49]

Yooo ngl I thought it was him

[@officer-157-]

You sound like someone who thinks all british people sound the same

[@BierBart12]

@@officer-157- You say that like they don't, Dan

[@drawingtofu974]

I literally just watched him a minute ago...

[@serbboi11al14]

I heard that instantly

[@keithlane8284]

Slow cruising is a shipping industry phenomenon that makes a return to wind power seem logical. Essentially, especially at times when there is excess shipping capacity... more boats than are economically needed... it makes sense for ship lines to purposely cruise much below their ships' maximum speed. This reduces fuel consumption but also greatly minimizes maintenance costs, as hulls and propellers and engines work with minimal strain. At a time when the industry is increasingly learning to go slower, it makes sense to capitalize on that fact by getting a free lift from the wind.

[@marcmelvin3010]

Almost 50 years ago, when I was a young sailor, the world was in fear of running out of oil. There were all sorts of articles and books written about it, and among the solutions for the future, there was a great deal of talk about bringing back wind-powered ships, including some designs that utilized the airfoil type sails described. Those fears were pure BS, just like the great global demise by CO2 is pure BS, but that's another issue. I loved the idea, having encountered a few sailing vessels in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean (there was a wrecked one in the harbor approaches to Victoria, Seychelles, that was fascinating), and would have loved to ship on one, but I got a chance to make a good living in a place where no one would recognize an anchor, and I took it, and meantime, those technical wonder sailing ships never showed up. I don't believe they ever will, at least not on this planet. Wind and solar are nice feel-good solutions that don't really work, though as propulsion, wind is at least viable, but we are a clever species, and unless we decide to devolve into some sort of global soviet union-style civilization, we will find a more efficient way than wind power.

[@nil981]

A global Soviet union civilization would be based AF.

[@yves-noel-mariegonnet1043]

Thank you! We have been talking about this technology for a very long time, and I do not understand that it is not being used more. I expect a lot from the development of these "new" (ancestral) (very old) technologies. Thank you!

[@brad4013]

I would be interested to know if nuclear power would be a possible option for large scale cargo ships. Small Modular Reactors and looking forward, Thorium Molten Salt Reactors seem to be making considerable advances.

[@namename9998]

Yes. Navies have nuclear powered vessels.

[@hinzuzufugen7358]

You mentioned a rotating-cylinder-system in order to harness wind power. A long time ago I read about this invention: the Flettner Rotor! It was tested aroubd 1925 but failed - the main point being that driving the rotor cost more energy than it created usable energy for propulsion... What to make of that?

[@douglascutler1037]

Little did the very first sailors know they'd actually invented a passive fusion energy collector.

[@liamredmill9134]

Thanks for tackling such a gigantean subject.the logistics of refurbishing ships with diesal offsets,or building new ones in the millions is unfeasable,these are good solutions.i thought of green or battery torpedoes as a offset to crude oil deasal .i think 5%of big ships will install expensive filters.its a worthy subject

[@bulasev]

I like your videos. Interesting topics and simple clean presentation. I just changed the notification from personalized to All. Keep them coming please.

[@ericmcquisten]

Nice video - and yes a hybrid system that combines more then one type of renewable, with more efficient diesel or hydrogen engines, would appeal to the largest number of shipping companies. On a side-note, your salt-lamp in the background provides nice ambience, but unlike many claim, it does NOT ionize the air. In order for salt to ionize the air, it would have to be super-heated, almost to the point of becoming plasma. On the other hand, any type of running water, such as the ocean, river, or waterfall does provide ionized air, and has been proven to offer health benefits to us humans.

[@grandrapids57]

This channel has high content and production standards.

[@TheGonzanator96]

This is such a fascinating concept! Love the era of dreaming we live in, even if all ideas don’t pan out.

[@BernardLS]

The problems with the wind as an energy source are variability, reliability and low energy density; also the canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships were never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’ and all this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’. When it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort. The area where one is most likely to be ‘becalmed’ is the ITCZ (Intertropical Convergence Zone) or ‘the doldrums’ as it is commonly called. In days of old ships with large crews, such as naval vessels, would try using the ships boats and some of the crew to row through the doldrums thus towing the mother ship out of the calm. Not practical for less well manned and much heavier merchant ships which could not muster a similar power (oarsmen) to weight ratio (vessel displacement). Traditional sailing ships are unable to go directly up wind so if the wind is blowing from the direction your cargo needs to go then a zig-zag course must be steered, more distance and thus more time on passage at whatever speed is achieved. Wind speed is traditionally measured on the Beaufort Scale (wind speed) that runs from 0 (< 1kn or 0.5ms-1) to 12 (> 63kn or 32.5ms-1) and for sailing purposes the usable part of the range is ‘3’ (circa 8kn or 4.1ms-1) to ‘6’ (circa 24kn or 12.3ms-1). As the wind speed, and the amount of energy that may be harvested there from, increases the sea surface becomes progressively more disturbed which makes the harvesting process ever more difficult and increases the stress on the vessel. The increased stress means the sail area has to be reduced, either by using fewer or smaller sails until the vessel may in extremis be ‘hove to under storm sails’. One way of reducing the sail area is by turning up the bottom edge; known as reefing. With any wind power proposals the question that must be asked include ‘has any information been released into the public domain with regard to the expected energy harvest for the wing forms, on a Watts per square meter basis? ‘Cutty Sark’, is said to have been able to coax 3 000 horse power (or 2 206 500 Watts / 2.2 megaWatts)) out of her, up to, 2 976m2 of sails, assuming ideal conditions and further assuming that for sailing purposes the usable part of the wind speed range is 4ms-1to 12ms-1 so the yield would be about 741 Watts m2. So another question ‘for the proposed option what is the expected upper wind speed limit for the system’? A single stage 'harvest to deployment' system for propulsion will have higher efficiency but ‘what steps are being taken to provide ancillary power such as the, small but essential, domestic, navigational and cargo needs?’

[@noaharce9031]

Keep up the great work your content is amazing!

[@ZirothTech]

Thank you!

[@appu95247]

Your videos cover all the good stuff... & the duration is perfect... Keep it up ...

[@cheezitz6730]

wind simply is not the most economical system for removing emmissions from these vessels. wind relies on, shockingly, wind. it also takes up deck space, costs too much, and the afformentioned issue with the charters. in reality, we have had a better solution for a long, long time: nuclear. many US navy ships are already powered by nuclear reactors, which create no emmisions. they also do not need fueling more than every 10+ years. the problem is insurance. when you put something that could explode on your ship and cause an ecological disaster, insurance skyrockets. however, we can make nuclear reactors that do not explode; we just need to use thorium reactors. unlike uranium, thorium is not fissile by itself and needs a small amount of plutonium in order to become fissile. this means that if shit hits the fan and it reaches the conditions where uranium powerplants explode, you can drain the thorium into another tank. no explosion. but what if the ship sinks? then build a reactor that can keep the radioactive bits contained until it can be extracted by a salvage operation; besides, ships do not sink that often anymore. a ship usually just goes from point A to point B for 40 years and is then broken up and made into another ship.

[@kaceymarkus2558]

Just incase this is the first shipping video you have come across. the practice of slower shipping routes is widely used by most shipping companies. That means this sail boat idea is a lot more achievable then this video portrays. if someone made a relatively cheap mono side mounting sail that wouldn't take up deck space this could become a reality.

[@Uffeful]

Just to put your figures in a bigger picture. 80-90% off all cargo is moved by boat. Most boats run on the waste from making petroleum products. So its already the best transport method. More boats, more sails and less stress.

[@xxwookey]

Not when you need to reduce emissions it isn't. That's the challenge. And those waste products are going to go away along with all the land transport shifting away from petroleum. I expect ammonia, methane or hydrogen to end up being the main ship fuel. Right now it's not clear which will prove most popular.

[@YavuzBel]

@@xxwookey First we will finish heavy fuels that you cant use on small engines. Meanwhile to reduce emissions, we will integrate scrubber systems to exhaust systems. Then we need to move on to another energy source. Hydrogen fuel cells are a good candidate. But we have a problem since hydrogen is fuel for these cells we need a lot of hydrogen to operate these things. And hydrogen has a bad reputation, its explosive. We do not want to stack flammable and explosive things close to each other when designing ships.

[@Uffeful]

@@xxwookey Hope that you are right in that the petroleum industry will disappear. I was thinking of how efficient it to ship things on big boats. According to ICS a very large container vessel emits 8g/tkm(gramms per tonne kilometer.) compared to a big truck at 80g/tkm. Inland shipping is at 38g/tkm. Diesel rail is at 18g/tkm. Its nasty fuels fuels you think we will have in engine rooms on boats. But you are probably right.

[@Wookey.]

@@Uffeful Yes shipping is very efficient, although not as efficient as not shipping things half way round the world because it's a few pence cheaper. Those fuels can also easily be made in a carbon-neutral (or very nearly) way. Hydrogen is trivial. It's not hard to go from hydrogen to ammonia (Haber-Bosch) or methane (just need a source of carbon such as CO2 pulled from atmosphere to make it neutral). The methanisation of hydrogen requires only a tiny bit of extra energy and methane is easier to store/transport. All very clean-burning fuels so I wouldn't call them 'nasty'. Not as pleasing as a wind drive, but probably more practical as a solution to the emissions of global shipping. 'All' you have to do is change the engines/fuel handling and make it available at ports, having made it from low-carbon electricity (mostly excess renewables, maybe some nuclear). This is all technically straightforward, but it needs to be either mandated or made cheaper than current fuels to become standard.

[@Uffeful]

@@Wookey. I agree. The nasty thing is that it is highly explosive and not like HFO that is like tar or asphalt. And ships that have been converted to LNG(methane) have the fuel tanks on deck, look at Fure west and Bit viking. From a motorman's view they can kill you fast compared to HFO that kills slowly. To this day no LNG ship has blown up. That 'all' that have to change is to give the shipping companies a economic reason to change. The reason no LNG ship has blown up yet is also economic. Either they are to new or they are shipping LNG and if one of those big ones blew up, they may have to move a lot of LNG harbors because of nervous neighbors. Next time a big ship cuts the Mauritius corner to close I hope its a LNG one so the fuel will go up in the sky instead of destroying the delicate environment down there.

[@PRH123]

Germany used metal hulled sailing ships for the transport of grain right up to WW2. The goods were not time sensitive, so the slower speed was not an issue, and they were economically viable. One of these ships is still in existence and operating as a historical Tall Ship.

[@rdsii64]

Making stuff in our own respective countries would reduce the need for as many shipping fleets. That will not cure the complete problem but it will help some.

[@priyansubhagabati8157]

It is not anymore viable, almost no country can survive without billions of dollars of trade today, whether rich or poor

[@richardscathouse]

Don't worry, it's all downhill from here! #NatureBatsLast

[@marcosandrini4920]

the sail method is basically what new american cup boats are using, seeing they sail at 3 times wind speed, it probably is a nice idea :)

[@ChadWilson]

Despite the pollution emitted, though, these cargo ships are much more ecological per ton than any other form of cargo transport.

[@RandomScientist]

especially compared to air travel

[@KasperiVonSchrowe]

As a sailor and boat designer, I challenge your doubts about sail power efficiency. If the winged cargo ship is receiving broadside wind at 20 knots and up, the ship will not need to use it's engines at all to reach 15 knots of ship speed, which is normal design speed of merchant ships. That means that in good conditions the ship won't use fuel at all. Of course we need engine power on head wind and calm, but in total I think the voyage could be done 75% less fuel consumption than with conventional vessels.

[@BernardLS]

Not sure if you are responding to my 'Cutty Sark' example that I have been posting all over this thread but how do you feel about the sail area per cargo tonne and energy yield per m2 of sail area I posted? Also, at the point of needless repetition, how about wind turbines? On board wind turbines might get you around some of the problems however for marine use of vertical axis wind turbines (VAWT) would be better than, the what have now become 'traditional', horizontal axis wind turbines (HAWT) for reasons that include the air draught of the vessel, weight distribution and maintenance access. The energy yield is still subject to the wind blowing at the right strength and having space available on board for the hardware. The masts, rigging and sail handling arrangements would take up 'prime real estate' on the vessel. Fuel oil bunker tanks can be stuck away in any odd corner and the ICE power plants are themselves relatively compact. The stacked up 'boxes' would mean putting the wind driven propulsion units in a bad situation from a ship stability point of view.

[@reggiep75]

We need nations to be encouraged into experimenting and sharing the costs of developing projects to reduce emissions. The flip side of that is that capitalists will always capitalists and if emission reduction projects were open source, they'd not engage, or engage fairly, unless they where allowed to capitalise and make massive gains from it and ensure others couldn't. Monopoly Capitalism will always see projects crawl along and lobbies will always be there to ensure the pioneers are held back.

[@ZirothTech]

I definitely agree these sorts of projects need to be encouraged!

[@gormauslander]

These companies only make money because people keep doing business with them. as soon as the people stop supporting these companies for their lack of integrity, they will fade. we are seeing this with oil companies versus renewable energy companies. The renewables are now growing and the oil companies are fading and losing money, because people are getting better educated on the situation we're in

[@averagejoey2000]

You can make gains on it though. I'm a capitalist and I like sail because the wind is free.

[@jamesmay7392]

I feel old now. Have a look at Walker Wingsail, way before its time

[@fgrion]

dude, i like the fact that you are not selling this as the future and are sceptical of the results, especially when they claim 90%. I think we are very far from renewable energy on big forms of transports (lorries, ships, planes,...). the reason is, all these are designed to have a (relatively) small engine compared to the full cargo. for example, if you think of a ship, probably the engine is 5% of the total size, together with the tanks maybe 10%, same for planes. Of course you can have an electric car because the current petrol engine uses almost 1/3 of the car (the front of back part) so a 1 to 1 transition is not a bad thing. About the kite, I really doubt it can be a feasible solution, simply because the ropes will need to be so ultra resistant that I doubt will be able to pull an entire vessel full of containers and in any case will reduce the emissions (as you mentioned) by 10% maximum, even by optimising them at their best.

[@SiriusXAim]

Only if you accept shipping times to be tripled. 10kts? Wow, such amaze, so fast, the sea gods are smiling upon us.

[@waylonk2453]

Seeing your face adds a human element to your channel. Subscribed!

[@OldMeanGeezer]

We had WAY better novels when ships were powered by sail!

[@PuppyKat404]

Blocking of other airfoils isn't the only reason wind from behind isn't good, it's also because the speed of the ship reduces the relative speed of the wind, but with wind from the side the relative speed is equal to the actual windspeed. Although if the ship speed is very small compared to the windspeed this effect is minimised.

[@TalenGryphon]

I love the idea of a return to the age of sail! But then my favorite era of ships are the weird transition period sailing vessels with steam auxiliaries. Particularly sidewheelers. One day it will be nuclear fusion powering ships, but I would like to see a return to sails until then

[@BernardLS]

To address the suggestions that sail power is the answer I offer the following. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’, she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots, dependent on the prevailing wind, to harness the energy the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2. To round things out that was circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of cargo carried. The ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for employment in the tea trade where time on passage was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective but as soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through, she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort.

[@petergarbutt9521]

In 1924 Anton Flettner, a German physicist, tested a prototype of one of his inventions, a rotor ship..... I see a ship called, M/V Estraden, that is fitted with rotas twice a week. I always thought that they were funnels, why I dont know ho ho, then noticed they were spinning, so I read about the ship. I found it very interesting, can reduce fuel consumption by up to 15%, this then had me looking up, rota inventions, thus, Anton Flettner. They can fit electrical generators to them as well, reducing diesel generator use, then possibly in the future, electric engines ???. I'm retired know, you learn something new all the time. Enjoyed the vidio.

[@mobeen360]

What if we add wind turbines and use them for running electric propulsion system?

[@RobertoCardadeiro]

I don't know about other techenics but I would think in 3D space utilization like Elon Musk says for his factories. Maybe the kite things could be worked on more. Maybe added solar panels and go on.

[@algrayson8965]

Conventional land-based style turbines are fragile and very top-heavy. Vertical cylindrical turbines that have a yin-yang-like X-section are much more efficient and practical for driving ships. They can have either a mechanical or an electrical drive and have diesel engines sending power through mechanical variable differential transmissions or by driving electrical generators. When wind power is sufficient for driving a ship at the calculated most cost-effective speed, the diesels would be shut down, saving fuel oil. If the wind is stronger, the ship can go faster.

[@mobeen360]

@@RobertoCardadeiro Thanks for sharing the knowledge! 😘

[@mobeen360]

@@algrayson8965 Thanks Sir for your comment! I got the point May Allah bless you!😘❤

[@BernardLS]

To address the suggestions that sail power is the answer I offer the following. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’, she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots, dependent on the prevailing wind, to harness the energy the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2. To round things out that was circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of cargo carried. The ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for employment in the tea trade where time on passage was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective but as soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through, she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort.

[@davidkatuin4527]

Interesting to see were it goes. I'm sure there will be other ideas that we haven't thought of.thanks for the vid.

[@ZirothTech]

Exactly! Always interesting to follow the development of these new ideas

[@norvusordoseclorum]

This is really good quality punchy content

[@THEScottCampbell]

Good, thoughtful analysis by the narrator. The "pollution" question aside, anything that raises the cost efficiency of cargo ships is well worth consideration. It's wise of the narrator to question the accuracy of the cost savings claims made by inventor/developers.

[@CreepSoldier]

Imagine a giant Kite pulling an enormous freight ship across the atlantic

[@davidwuhrer6704]

No need to image, that is actually done.

[@smith5312]

Very interesting video ! This is an area that needs more investigation by science and engineering.

[@fortwoodchuck4198]

It's a sailboat

[@MouradMokrane]

Nuclear powered ships are potentially the best answer to this problem. They are reliable, don’t depend on weather, leave upper decks free for cargo, and should be restocked with fuel rods once in a few years. Also, the depleted fuel can be recycled into new fuel for fast neutron reactors, basically creating a closed cycle, that doesn’t involve carbon emissions whatsoever.

[@YavuzBel]

Its all good but we need to make these ships big, I mean Big Big so they can only sail between main ports. Of course we are assuming these ports can handle this megastructures. Shipping is all about timing and planning if you want to make money. If something wont make you money, no one wants it.

[@MouradMokrane]

@@YavuzBel Nuclears icebreakers made recently in Russia are indeed huge, so going big isn’t a problem for nuclear-powered ships. The main reason this technology isn’t widely available, is probably because if such a ship falls in the wrong hands (for examples pirates or terrorists), its nuclear fuel can be used to create a dirty bomb. Also, restocking such a ship with new nuclear fuel will require specialized facilities and trained people, and to this day, only a few countries (like Russia, France or the US) have experience with naval nuclear reactors.

[@YavuzBel]

@@MouradMokrane there are a lot of issues about nuclear powered ships. First issue is nuclear powered ships are to sustain their own at oceans for a long time. Freight ships max voyage time is not long enough. So you need to go big to make profit, but then you need to fill that ship which is also another problem then you need to empty all of that stuff at various ports. Big crude oil ships only builded around 1970-80s of cold war, why? USA and Soviet were afraid of a war so they builded big crude oil tankers to handle and stock much more oil than normal. Another issue is securtiy you need a fleet of naval ships to ensure the safety of that ship which is also beats the purpouse of building that ship. Also Im sure none of the countries want a nuclear ship in their waters.

[@pnachtwey]

The problem is that people cannot operate nuclear power reliably. It takes a lot of training and people will cut corners.

[@MouradMokrane]

@@pnachtwey Most nuclear reactors are nowadays operated automatically, and there are tons of fail-safes on modern Gen 3+ reactors. Sure it takes training, but so does operating a modern gas turbine. Cutting corners is pretty much impossible with a modern nuclear reactor, it simply won't let the operator do anything that may lead to disaster.

[@clivemcquire7686]

What a great idea!! They could have big sails on masts!!

[@BernardLS]

To address the suggestions that wind power is the answer I offer the following example. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’. The 'Cutty Sark' was 64.74 metres in length with a beam of 10.97 metres and a loaded displacement of 2 100 tonnes. She was able to carry, at best, 1 700 tonnes of cargo and to harness the energy in the wind the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2 which was tended by a crew of about 30 skilled men. A ratio between the sail area (SA) and the vessels displacement (D) determines how lively she is; ‘lively’ being nautical speak for ‘fast and manoeuvrable’. The carrying capacity of cargo ships is constrained in two ways, mass and volume which leads us to the ‘stowage factor’ of the cargo; the more mass on board the greater the displacement which in turn impacts the efficiency of the hull form and sail area / displacement ratio. A vessel constrained by mass is said to be ‘down but not full’, while a vessel constrained by volume is said to be ‘full but not down. When in the tea trade, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for with fine lines (more nautical tech speak, so again no need to worry about it) she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots dependent on the prevailing wind and had a typical China to UK time on passage of 120 days. The tea trade was very competitive so ‘time on passage’ was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective. Rounding things out, her maximum available sail area gave circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of tea carried. As soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through; she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era who could beat her ‘time on passage’ by taking that short cut. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, fire tube boiler, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort. Sailing ships are unable to go directly up wind so if the wind is blowing form the direction your cargo needs to then a zig-zag course must be steered, more distance and more time. Wind is traditionally measured on the Beaufort Scale (wind speed) that runs from 0 (< 1kn) to 12 (> 63kn) and for sailing purposes the usable part of the range is ‘3’ (circa 8kn) to ‘6’ (circa 24kn). Random fact about ‘Cutty Sark’, it is said to have been possible to coax 3 000 horse power out of her sails, or in ‘real money’ 2 206 500 Watts (2.2 megaWatts), or 741 Watts for each square meter of sail area. So that majestic spread of canvas would have been even less efficacious for delivering your baubles and bows from the orient, despite taking about three times as long on the voyage. The sails on the ‘Cutty Sark' produce about 0.33% of the power need to propel a Mearsk Triple E or less than one two hundredth of the output from the ICEs. Remember shipping is a high volume low cost, therefore low margin business, and all costs have to be beneficial. Canvas and hemp are accorded 'renewable' (read as ‘natural’) status, if ‘synthetics’ are used there will still be a need for the input of FOGI products. 'Synthetics' would have a much better working life span than 'naturals' but would still yield the same amount of energy, 741 Watts for each square meter in those elusive ideal conditions. Wallenius are currently giving wind power a go with wing form ‘sails’ but evidence is a little short of proof as of this date. KTH (Kungliga Tekniska högskolan), a sort of up market university in Stockholm, who are using the funding to derive results will probably, and eventually, in the best traditions of academia ‘publish’ a ‘paper’ unless the funders invoke the well known ‘commercial sensitivity clause’ of their agreement with the KTH. On board wind turbine might get you around some of the problems, however for marine use vertical axis wind turbines (VAWT) would be better than, the what have now become 'traditional', horizontal axis wind turbines (HAWT) for reasons that include the air draught of the vessel, weight distribution and maintenance access. The energy yield is still subject to the wind blowing at the right strength and having space available on board for the hardware. The masts, rigging and sail handling arrangements would take up 'prime real estate' on the vessel. Fuel oil bunker tanks can be stuck away in any odd corner and the ICE power plants are themselves relatively compact. The stacked up 'boxes' would mean putting the wind driven propulsion units in a bad situation from a ship stability point of view.

[@Catman2123]

“You could not live with your own failure, so where did that bring you? Back to me.”

[@BrunoWiebelt]

the kite solution seams to be the most promising ; low footprint easy to retrofit; its a pity that the oilprice is so low in the moment

[@Blazingstar75]

Nuclear energy? It has already been used for military applications, why not for commercial?

[@Terminator484]

Money, essentially. Construction & operating costs for nuclear marine propulsion are much higher than diesel... and the cost & complexity of getting insurance for such ships is extortionate. The American *NS Savannah* was a good demonstrator, but too small to be competitive as a cargo or passenger ship, and too expensive to operate commercially. The German *NS Otto Hahn* sailed for 10 years on nuclear, before the owner converted her to diesel to cut costs. The Japanese *NS Mutsu* was a lemon, plagued with malfunctions and leaks. Her reactor was ripped out, and she now lives on as the oceanographic vessel *RV Mirai.* The Russian *Sevmorput* has run the North Sea route between 1988 and 2012. She was refurbished and put back into service in 2016 as an icebreaking nuclear cargo ship, and delivered supplies to Antarctica early this year. As of today, she is the only such commercial vessel to still be nuclear powered.

[@Soken50]

Already in use commercialy on Russian icebreakers, it would be a good contender for shipping if not for the prohibitive cost compared to fuel.

[@davem5333]

One of the factors that made the NS Savannah so expensive to operate was the fact that it was a government project.

[@Soken50]

@@davem5333 The other factor is that the US military needs a million dollars to change a light bulb, In France we have nuclear submarines and aircraft carrier, doesn't cost us much. We have a lot of experience handling nuclear boilers though.

[@michaelmartin4383]

The Cutty Sark was able to reach speeds of 40 knots (the speed of a small speed boats). Two factors were at play the shape of the hull which reduced drag allowing the ship to lift out of the water at speed and hydroplane. The other was the amount of canvas it was able to put to the wind. Remember the Cutty Sark was not a speed boat, but a cargo ship capable of carrying a large cargo.

[@filipmarkovski9695]

Nuclear is just a s clean and nowadays safe, not to mention endlessly costeffective, but there's still the irrational fear of it.

[@andersgrassman6583]

It is way to complicated and expensive a technology. One really has to have very good reasons to use it. Like a long range military submarine.

[@WEMBLEYNE]

@@andersgrassman6583 the ruskies built a fleet of nuclear icebreakers in the artic. I guess it won't take long before they build a fleet of nuclear cargoships and leave everybody in the dust, especially these wind ships of the future 😂

[@juch3]

Mostly from the west since developing countries who want to build these type of ships would of course need a nuclear program first.

[@tigerseye73]

In the 70's, a ship was fitted with rotating tubular sails. It sailed quite impressively until high wind bent the sail tubes. This idea is not new, but it will take either an oil blockade or government intervention and support to convince shipping company's to change their oil glutenous ways.

[@miroslavmilan]

Cool video, but it could be longer and more in depth. I feel there were some better ones. Keep it up!

[@ZirothTech]

I appreciate the constructive criticism, I agree it could have had more detail, but it takes a long time to try and research into areas I am not an expert in! Thanks for the comment!

[@jansa940]

As a kayaker, I prefer paddle power. But on a windy day I might consider adding a parafoil sail

[@fiikfiik]

Molten salt cooled, thorium breeder cycle fission reactors will revolutionize shipping.

[@erikarneberg11]

And sails! ; )

[@fiikfiik]

@@erikarneberg11 I disagree. Relying on an inherently diffuse energy source is fundamentally wrongheaded. It is the same reason we will never power our world with wind or solar energy.

[@peterflynn9123]

Fantastic channel - well presented -keep producing more

[@k1tooy_m]

Love how he apologized to flat earthers lmao

[@carbon1255]

If you are in orbit the earth is flat, in a manner of speaking, due to general relativity XD

[@Deutsche_1]

@@carbon1255 circling in orbit makes you wake up...relatively...

[@Deutsche_1]

@Saved By Jesus Hence god, heaven and hell is man made, what is your comment about..???

[@DjClarky78]

I wonder if wind turbines and solar panels (along the top of the containers) could be used to drive an electric motor for the propeller?

[@20_percent]

As a kid, was selling used items on our front lawn, I almost invented eBay. used to play with electric slot car racing tracks, was this close to becoming the next Tesla before Nikola Tesla was even born. I once looked out the window, it was just a matter of time before I created... 4ntaTb Aanbwe

[@maverick9300]

Multiple kites, each flying in a different altitude (or something. Not an expert on sailing). That way, minimal cargo area is used, and we can take advantage of far more air power than even a traditional sail system. It seems like the easiest system to maintain, and can be retracted completely, or have parts easily swapped. Largest part is the sail, and it can be folded. It also seems easy add to an existing ship.

[@WindTechInsights]

I think it is more likely that remote floating wind farms producing hydrogen will serve as fuel stations.

[@andersgrassman6583]

Well, as he points out at the end of the film, combining technologies would be interesting. (I to very much believe in hydrogen tech.)

[@ProfessorFickle]

Best of luck so trying to store hydrogen.

[@RoadRashSpirit]

@@ProfessorFickle You do know there are massive ships that transport gas around the planet. The technology is not new. From an engineering perspective its not an issue.

[@ProfessorFickle]

@@RoadRashSpirit :apples vs Oranges. Natural gas in dedicated cargo ships leak a little... hydrogen Gas 😂 Good luck with that.

[@RoadRashSpirit]

@@ProfessorFickle Other than the fact that a small amount of leakage in a well ventilated area is fine. We have been storing gasses like hydrogen for 100s of years. Like I said, it's not even an engineering challenge. It's run of the mill stuff.

[@goldwinger5434]

Wow! Popular Science magazine had a cover story about this back in the early 1970s.

[@Nhatanh0475]

Is Wind Power The Future of Shipping? The Past: I'm The Future!

[@VidarrKerr]

I guess you never heard of rowing.

[@somaganisuryanarayana8212]

excellent. it is always welcome to use wind power in all forms

[@gavinmccraw4969]

Smh, we should be using SMR’s (Small modular reactors) for shipping. You will need heavy regulation and security but the climate impact and speed will make up for this.

[@charleshughbryan5603]

Great video ! Jacque Custeau had a vertical rotating sail on his ship made from aluminum in the 70s. He did have great success with it however it continued to Crack the welds at the base and was discontinued. Maybe carbon fiber is the answer.

[@BernardLS]

The problems with the wind as an energy source are variability, reliability and low energy density. If ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort. The area where one is most likely to be ‘becalmed’ is the ITCZ (Intertropical Convergence Zone) or ‘the doldrums’ as it is commonly called. In days of old ships with large crews, such as naval vessels, would try using the ships boats and some of the crew to row through the doldrums thus towing the mother ship out of the calm. Not practical for less well manned and much heavier merchant ships which could not muster a similar power (oarsmen) to weight ratio (vessel displacement). Traditional sailing ships are unable to go directly up wind so if the wind is blowing from the direction your cargo needs to go then a zig-zag course must be steered, more distance and thus more time on passage at whatever speed is achieved. Wind speed is traditionally measured on the Beaufort Scale (wind speed) that runs from 0 (< 1kn or 0.5ms-1) to 12 (> 63kn or 32.5ms-1) and for sailing purposes the usable part of the range is ‘3’ (circa 8kn or 4.1ms-1) to ‘6’ (circa 24kn or 12.3ms-1). As the wind speed, and the amount of energy that may be harvested therefrom, increases the sea surface becomes progressively more disturbed which makes the harvesting process ever more difficult and increases the stress on the vessel. The increased stress means the sail area has to be reduced, either by using fewer or smaller sails until the vessel may in extremis be ‘hove to under storm sails’. One way of reducing the sail area is by turning up the bottom edge; known as reefing. With any wind power proposals the question that must be asked include ‘has any information been released into the public domain with regard to the expected energy harvest for the wing forms, on a Watts per square meter basis? ‘Cutty Sark’, is said to have been able to coax 3 000 horse power (or 2 206 500 Watts / 2.2 megaWatts)) out of her, up to, 2 976m2 of sails, assuming ideal conditions and further assuming that for sailing purposes the usable part of the wind speed range is 4ms-1to 12ms-1 so the yield would be about 741 Watts m2. So another question ‘for the proposed option what is the expected upper wind speed limit for the system’? A single stage 'harvest to deployment' system for propulsion will have higher efficiency but ‘what steps are being taken to provide ancillary power such as the, small but essential, domestic, navigational and cargo needs?’ One of the limits to wind power is the kinetic energy available to be harvested in the mass of air it is possible to contain. Another is the scale of the operation when sailing ships were being succeeded by power driven vessels the largest that were built included the ‘Prußen’ and the ‘Thomas W Larsen’. The ‘Prußen’ used a crew of 45 to move up to 8 100 tonnes of cargo and was lost at sea following a collision with a power driven vessel. The ‘Thomas W Larsen’ used a crew of 18 to move up to 11 000 tonnes of cargo this vessel was lost when at anchor in the Scilly Isles where she was sheltering from a storm.

[@bladder1010]

Yes, wind is the future of shipping. Well ... until someone gets around to inventing the steam engine, that is.

[@rogersheddy6414]

In the early 1920s German shipping was crippled because of the fact that mining in Germany was hit a hard Blow by labor shortages. I mean, all those dead miners rotting in the trenches would be a problem. So they developed the wind columns similar to these ones you saw on the first ship Illustrated here. These were used as an auxiliary power, to propel the ship forward when conditions were favorable. I understand that they cut down fuel consumption by 60% in this way. The reason they did not continue to be used, is that the coal shortage was resolved eventually and prices for coal went down.

[@yeyabannz3641]

If I could buy stocks on a KZbinrs potential growth rate I would sell all my Tesla and Apple and buy in on you

[@gavinmccraw4969]

Foster Vannz: You will make a small fortune in like 4 years.

[@yeyabannz3641]

@@gavinmccraw4969 bought 1000 worth of Apple in 2010. It’s worth 18k now. Then three years ago bought 2500 worth of Tesla. It’s worth 20k now. Invest boys!!!

[@gavinmccraw4969]

Foster Vannz: BUY SMILE DIRECT CLUB. BULLISH BULLISH BULLISH!!

[@yeyabannz3641]

@@gavinmccraw4969 UNITY OR SNAP

[@WEMBLEYNE]

This channel is growing because people are damn stupid nowadays and buy into these pipe dreams of renewable energy.

[@RayDrouillard]

Wind power is definitely the past of shipping. I remember seeing articles about sailing cargo ships way back in the seventies -- when the OPEC oil embargo caused the energy crisis. Meanwhile, we sailed a considerable number of miles all about the Great Lakes. We had a small outboard motor and a five gallon tank of gas that we would refill a couple times a year. Maneuvering through the marina was a whole lot easier under motor power.

[@Wafflepudding]

"Is wind power the future of shipping?" If you're on the age of the triremes and oar carracks, yes.

[@EnhancedCognition]

I believe that going back to steam power / renewable combo through the use of Solar thermal collectors on nice sunny days directed at boilers, whilst also utilizing rotor sails (that would also aid in propelling the vessel) with a rotating shaft to produce friction heat that is immersed in a water tank to essentially create a wind powered boiler for the steam engines...

[@prognosis8768]

I think part of the problem in the time it takes for wind powered sailing could be fixed with a change in tax laws. The "just-in-time" inventory systems that make fast shipping necessary are mostly for the purposes of avoiding taxes on inventory. Allowing manufacturers to store inventory without having to worry about paying taxes on it could eliminate the wasteful just-in-time system and make it possible for slower types of shipping to be used.

[@BernardLS]

To address the suggestions that wind power is the answer I offer the following example. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’. The ‘Cutty Sark’ was 64.74 metres in length with a beam of 10.97 metres and a loaded displacement of 2 100 tonnes. She was able to carry, at best, 1 700 tonnes of cargo and to harness the energy in the wind the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2 which was tended by a crew of about 30 skilled men. A ratio between the sail area (SA) and the vessels displacement (D) determines how lively she is; ‘lively’ being nautical speak for ‘fast and manoeuvrable’. The carrying capacity of cargo ships is constrained in two ways, mass and volume which leads us to the ‘stowage factor’ of the cargo; the more mass on board the greater the displacement which in turn impacts the efficiency of the hull form and sail area / displacement ratio. A vessel constrained by mass is said to be ‘down but not full’, while a vessel constrained by volume is said to be ‘full but not down. When in the tea trade, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for with fine lines (more nautical tech speak, so again no need to worry about it) she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots dependent on the prevailing wind and had a typical China to UK time on passage of 120 days. The tea trade was very competitive so ‘time on passage’ was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective. Rounding things out, her maximum available sail area gave circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of tea carried. As soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through; she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era who could beat her ‘time on passage’ by taking that short cut. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, fire tube boiler, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort. Traditional sailing ships are unable to go directly up wind so if the wind is blowing from the direction your cargo needs to go then a zig-zag course must be steered, more distance and thus more time on passage at whatever speed is achieved. Wind speed is traditionally measured on the Beaufort Scale (wind speed) that runs from 0 (< 1kn) to 12 (> 63kn) and for sailing purposes the usable part of the range is ‘3’ (circa 8kn) to ‘6’ (circa 24kn). As the wind speed, and the amount of energy that may be harvested there from, increases the sea surface becomes progressively more disturbed which makes the harvesting process ever more difficult. Random fact about ‘Cutty Sark’, it is said to have been possible to coax 3 000 horse power out of her sails, or in ‘real money’ 2 206 500 Watts (2.2 megaWatts), assuming this was in ideal conditions or 741 Watts for each square meter of sail area. So that majestic spread of canvas would have been less than efficacious for delivering your baubles and bows from the orient, despite taking about three times as long on the voyage.

[@erika002]

Life comes in full circle: Antiquity up to 1800's: *Wind powered Sail Ships* Industrial Revolution 1800's: Hybrid Sail/Paddle Steamers Industrial Revolution early 1900's: Steam powered Metal Ships early 1900's up to present day: Diesel/Gasoline powered Ships Cold War up to present day: *Nuclear powered Ships* 2020: *_haha Wind powered Sail Ships go wheeee_*

[@hettekloosterman16]

Just like alot of people say, history repeats itself.

[@hanselsihotang]

People switched from traditional wind-powered to machine-power ships because they wanted greater speed and maneuverability, so they could ship more things faster. Now people had achieved so much of it that engine and fuel cost had become a bigger problem than slowness that plague the wind-power ships. Ironic.

[@Ubersnuber]

I like the thought of these. For shipping of goods, it can be as slow as it wants to be. Of course not drifting aimlessly-speed, but it is accepted that overseas shipping takes weeks or months already. Point being they can optimise fuel savings, instead of having impatient passengers as a factor. And who knows, maybe cruise lines will pick up on it. For once, a nice loop that improves on itself in business.

[@BernardLS]

To address the suggestions that wind power is the answer I offer the following example. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’. The Cutty Sark was 64.74 metres in length with a beam of 10.97 metres and a loaded displacement of 2 100 tonnes. She was able to carry, at best, 1 700 tonnes of cargo and to harness the energy in the wind the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2 which was tended by a crew of about 30 skilled men. A ratio between the sail area (SA) and the vessels displacement (D) determines how lively she is; ‘lively’ being nautical speak for ‘fast and manoeuvrable’. The carrying capacity of cargo ships is constrained in two ways, mass and volume which leads us to the ‘stowage factor’ of the cargo; the more mass on board the greater the displacement which in turn impacts the efficiency of the hull form and sail area / displacement ratio. A vessel constrained by mass is said to be ‘down but not full’, while a vessel constrained by volume is said to be ‘full but not down. When in the tea trade, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for with fine lines (more nautical tech speak, so again no need to worry about it) she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots dependent on the prevailing wind and had a typical China to UK time on passage of 120 days. The tea trade was very competitive so ‘time on passage’ was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective. Rounding things out, her maximum available sail area gave circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of tea carried. As soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through; she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era who could beat her ‘time on passage’ by taking that short cut. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, fire tube boiler, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort. Sailing ships are unable to go directly up wind so if the wind is blowing form the direction your cargo needs to then a zig-zag course must be steered, more distance and more time. Wind is traditionally measured on the Beaufort Scale (wind speed) that runs from 0 (< 1kn) to 12 (> 63kn) and for sailing purposes the usable part of the range is ‘3’ (circa 8kn) to ‘6’ (circa 24kn). Random fact about ‘Cutty Sark’, it is said to have been possible to coax 3 000 horse power out of her sails, or in ‘real money’ 2 206 500 Watts (2.2 megaWatts), or 741 Watts for each square meter of sail area. So that majestic spread of canvas would have been even less efficacious for delivering your baubles and bows from the orient, despite taking about three times as long on the voyage. The sails on the ‘Cutty Sark produce about 0.33% of the power need to propel a Mearsk Triple E in ‘ideal conditions’ the energy harvest would be less than one two hundredth of the output from the ICEs. Remember shipping is a high volume low cost, therefore low margin business, and all costs have to be beneficial. Canvas and hemp are accorded 'renewable' (read as ‘natural’) status, if ‘synthetics’ are used there will still be a need for the input of FOGI products. 'Synthetics' would have a much better working life span than 'naturals' but would still yield the same amount of energy, 741 Watts for each square meter in those elusive ideal conditions. Wallenius are currently giving wind power a go with wing form ‘sails’ but evidence is a little short of proof as of this date. KTH (Kungliga Tekniska högskolan), a sort of up market university in Stockholm, who are using the funding to derive results will probably, and eventually, in the best traditions of academia ‘publish’ a ‘paper’ unless the funders invoke the well known ‘commercial sensitivity clause’ of their agreement with the KTH. On board wind turbine might get you around some of the problems, however for marine use vertical axis wind turbines (VAWT) would be better than, the what have now become 'traditional', horizontal axis wind turbines (HAWT) for reasons that include the air draught of the vessel, weight distribution and maintenance access. The energy yield is still subject to the wind blowing at the right strength and having space available on board for the hardware. The masts, rigging and sail handling arrangements would take up 'prime real estate' on the vessel. Fuel oil bunker tanks can be stuck away in any odd corner and the ICE power plants are themselves relatively compact. The stacked up 'boxes' would mean putting the wind driven propulsion units in a bad situation from a ship stability point of view.

[@jdmxxx38]

I suspect the motor is here to stay. Probably need a different fuel. I'm an engineer without a crystal ball. Just reasonable judgement.

[@arealassassin]

Yea, It's like the thing about electric trucks. I have one word on that particular idea...; Australia. 'nuff said.

[@sillysad3198]

adding a kite does not hurt

[@TheCaptNoname]

So, nuclear powered cargo freighters, da?

[@Ph33NIXx]

Mærsk has pointed three co2 free fuels of the future: Alcohol, Biomethane and Ammonia. I read an article about it, they have pointed on those 3 in hopes suppliers will rise to the challenge and engineers figuring out the infrastructure needed to fuel the ships with these. At least Ammonia can cause serious issues if a fueling station leaks.

[@Ya_Boy_Squelch]

Humans: Create fast ,gasoline powered ships Many years later Wind 💨: You could not live with your own Failure, Where did that bring you, Back To Me

[@danielgawedzki3425]

Anyone notice how the flags at 0:45 are backwards?

[@cristianvillanueva8782]

Thats how air flow works....

[@giovannicesaramorim9adigan961]

"Is Wind Power The Future of Shipping?" Do you know why we started using engines? Because wind is slow, extremely, slow.

[@damianousley8833]

Go to the aps that track shipping. The number of vessels on the high seas are quite considerable. Also the best wind routes are very hazardous due to weather and sea state conditions. Numerous ships were lost around the Capes in the days of sail. The last wind jammers were either sunk in WW1or WW2.

[@sbdruitt]

Cheeky face reveal ;)

[@rfldss89]

Still crossing my fingers for hydrogen powered cargo ships :)

[@Sxphire]

only 20k subs? you’re gonna make it one day and i’ll get to brag about how i used to watch u while u had 20k

[@galupas]

Yeah, sailing ships and the future is sailing ships?

[@BernardLS]

To address the suggestions that sail power is the answer I offer the following. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’, she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots, dependent on the prevailing wind, to harness the energy the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2. To round things out that was circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of cargo carried. The ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for employment in the tea trade where time on passage was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective but as soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through, she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort.

[@johnhili8664]

@@BernardLS some body must be day dreaming , on paper it looks good but???????

[@BernardLS]

@@johnhili8664 The idea of sail powered ships is good but does not scale up. The size of modern ships goes up to a level that many people, who have no practical experience of them, are unable to appreciate. The easiest way to reduce the environmental impact of the shipping industry is to move less stuff shorter distances. Option two is to burn less of the cleanest fuel available; but be aware there are always impacts.

[@davidchristensen6908]

The kite seems like a good deal considering you can add it to a ship already built. The computer and “mast” that hold it seems to be a minimal cost really. 8% on the low end month over month would be a substantial savings let alone if you got 20% to 30% for part of the time and never saw 50%. This system leaves the decks open as well. Imagine seeing huge kites for miles away over the ocean.

[@Skoda130]

If marine ships can go nuclear, then why freight ships can't?

[@manolisko8881]

Insanely high costs?

[@Skoda130]

@@manolisko8881 Meh, at the beginning maybe. But running costs not particularly.

[@leerman22]

The fuel for a nuclear reactor costs far less than the fuel for an ICE engine. I last heard it was only 0.66 cents per Kwh in a powerplant.

[@leerman22]

@Thomas Kreuzer It's only waste if you waste it.

[@RandomScientist]

the nuclear waste is more dangerous than global warming. there is no effective storage method of that without costing a ton. renewables are really the best option currently available. second best is fossil fuel. nuclear hazard easily outweigh benefits. imagine a 1000 nuclear powered cargo ships are to be decommissioned in a decade. the amount of nuclear waste dumped into ocean will become far worse than the effects of climate change.