The Shipping Industry May Finally Be Turning To Wind Power (HBO)

[@justsomeguy5074]

"*Returning* to wind power." is more appropriate when you think about it.

[@davidanalyst671]

The shipping industry had to keep up with Vice's agenda, so they have to say "finally" lolz

[@slippast]

The figures in this story need more context. I hate new stories that don't include a sufficient level of detail. How much do they normally spend on fuel per day? How much does the system cost? What does maintenance cost? Etc.

[@skyak4493]

Yes, the internet continues to flood the public with emotional shocking allegations against institutions then backing them up with absolutely NOTHING! Made you look! Got your data! The best discussion of this exact topic is on BoatDesign.net -lots of smart enthusiasts and actual responsible professionals. Search "magnus effect" There is another more promising tech using kites and there is also a movement making complete carbon-less shipping (that's still a marketing based system).

[@DuanRussel]

Couldn't agree more. I was going to make the same point. His statement it could save a boat 400 tonnes of fuel per year is completely meaningless if you dont know the total consumption. is that 50%? or 2%?

[@rocadezona85]

Because they're just supposed to rile up the public on subjects they know little about but are digested emotionally

[@shake6321]

if they gave you such details you would no it was complete nonsense. you’d also realize that you would have to pay more for your goods. thus, they say things like we can get to zero emissions today. we can always get to zero emissions. the question is what do we lose by getting there?

[@ajvhan]

if they would you would realise how stupid they are

[@danielpimenta4788]

what is % of fuel that thing save, that is the only real important question, and the CEO refused to answer, that is not a good sign.

[@PSG1JOHN1]

I think Fuel cost is $310-$350 USD per ton, he says 400 tons a year.. that about if using lowest price point $124,000 a year in savings. A large Cargo ship uses 17 tons to 350+ tons a day, depending on speed and size. So going at best bang for your buck cargo ship moves at 15miles an hour ship uses about 17 tons going 400miles a day costing $5,270 per day people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/fuel_consumption_containerships.html

[@Agent-000-0]

11 years ago, in Germany it was stated to cut the fuelcost by 30 to 40% at 16 knots. The Numbers are from German articles about the E-Ship 1. www.wikiwand.com/en/E-Ship_1 VW wanted a transporter of this kind but cancelled the program.

[@seneca983]

It's not the "only real important question". If the savings are larger than the cost of the rotor sails it makes sense to put them on ships even if the effect weren't huge.

[@rb9949]

yep, not the only important question. probably adding more or bigger sails will get you better %, but it wont necessarily effect the payback. Payback time is the thing the ship owners are ultimately interested in.

[@fuckoffwiththehandles]

Payback time is the most important factor. Keep in mind a lot of shipping companies construct cheap chinese made ships that have a lifespan of about 5 years. If your return in investment isn't shorter than 5 years nobody's going to bother.

[@EntertaningAmerica]

Don't you mean turning BACK to wind... -ha ha ha......

[@lIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIlI]

JustTrynaGraduate stop it

[@ComfyRift]

Nice on XD

[@killacamfoo]

1977: The Goods of the future will be delivered by teleportation! 2017: Shipping fuel consumption offset by less than 1% by wind power.

[@emailadress2803]

When did they say 1%?

[@abz998]

@@emailadress2803 $400 a day... Average container ships spend tens of thousands on fuel every day. That's why the Norse power guy avoided giving a percentage...

[@miiiikku]

@@abz998 He avoided giving the number because he was a Finn. Anyway, he was probably asked the number, if the reporter knew anything about their job, but it was cut from the video.

[@lolo_o4309]

It's over 6% they gave a number a few years back in another video

[@peterworsley4699]

The wind hitting the cylinders does not make them turn. They have to be kept spinning by a motor.

[@wheisenberg559]

These "Flettner" rotors do not spin when hit by the wind. They are spun electrically.

[@macrumpton]

Or by some other kind of motor.

[@patsignoret]

Right. Serious misunderstanding and wrong explanation of the Magnus effect. The rotors must be spinning already so that when the wind hits them there is that difference in air pressure to propel the ship.

[@GR-uh7me]

"Frigate Spinner". The person who named this must be really really happy

[@adrianenterprise5829]

@@aliceshaw8265 lol

[@andyc9902]

Plagiarism

[@NiftyShifty1]

The Shipping industry wouldn’t be “turning” to wind power. It would be RETURNING to wind power. I believe it’s called critical thought.

[@GhostInTheShell29]

I've noticed the world makes a lot more sense when you realize most people have no idea about history. So all ideas to them are new ideas.

[@liamsmith3067]

"The technology exists today to make a 0 emission ship" so, like sails?

[@josephstewart98]

Nathan/Ghost, it's far more nuanced than that. Think a little. Sails were replaced by steam and eventually engines running on fuel oil and diesel oil because of the far greater efficiency they offer. Ships became much faster, larger, and able to transport more and more goods, leading to today's ultra-large container ships. There's not much chance of shipping returning wholesale to wind, which simply cannot meet the demands of modern trading. So this 'return' to wind is not a return to powering vessels by wind, but it is a way of offsetting their fuel usage and therefore emissions. However, when batteries are sufficiently improved, there may be the possibility of storing wind energy and therefore making it the primary source of propulsion. Until then, wind will serve an auxiliary role, but that's not to dismiss its importance. Shipping is driven by money, and despite the environmental case is not going to return to wind power, because it simply cannot compete. With new IMO targets, though, we will see greater uptake of these sorts of technologies.

[@seneca983]

@@josephstewart98: "However, when batteries are sufficiently improved, there may be the possibility of storing wind energy and therefore making it the primary source of propulsion." But that's not how the rotor sails work. They don't generate electricity but, in fact, expend energy since they need to be spun by a motor so you can't really store the propulsion they create anywhere.

[@BernardLS]

As an example the above container (called boxes by nautical folk) area of a Maersk triple E is less than 399.2m by 59m. The 399.2m is the length between perpendiculars (marine tech speak - no need to worry about it) and the 59m is the width overall (more marine tech speak so again no need to worry about it) allowing for the sides, bow, stern & navigation/accommodation structure could we agree 340m x 56m or 19 040m2 for the ‘top of stow’ area? Insolation rate in Joules will vary due to time of day, latitude of vessel, declination of sun, (those three impact the elevation of the power source) cloud cover, efficiency of solar panels and how clean they are. The triple E class use 29 680 kiloWatts for propulsion at full whack plus some hotel and services power load cost; so for round numbers, could we agree 30 megaWatts? Solar panels create about 155 Watts m2 averaged out; 19 040 x 155 gives me 2 951 200 Watts (or 3 megaWatts for a round number) from the top of all the boxes. Three megaWatts might allow you to distil enough fresh water from the sea to wash the crud of the solar panels (surprise fact renewable energy comes with maintenance costs) but nowhere near enough to effectively 'push the boat along'. Fitting solar panels on top of the ‘boxes’ is worth, at most, 1% of your power requirement. More seriously the ‘boxes’ are loaded and unloaded from the top down so the solar panel array would need to be moved for every port operation and time is money as well as that operation having the ability to get very complicated (tech speak for ‘go wrong’). Any additional weight would be in the worst possible place for the stability of your vessel, the operating environment would be harsh and the ‘top of stow’ on a ‘box boat’ is seldom a level expanse as each column of containers may be, and usually is, of differing heights. 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. Random facts about Cutty Sark. It is said to have been able 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 that is about ⅔ of the power that might be harvested from the ‘top of stow’ of a Maersk triple E, again in those elusive ideal conditions. 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. 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.

[@j.t.frompa5508]

The wind doesn't make the rotors spin but a separate motor does. Just looked this up 5 minutes ago on Wikipedia. I had never heard of this system before. How the reporter got such a fundamental fact wrong when it only took me a few moments to read up on this technology is odd. A quick perusal of other internet sources verified this. Going to continue to check out if it is possible to make it work without a separate motor but so far no luck.

[@golden4730]

$400 saving?! The cost of installing these things doesn't seem to profit in short term, maybe in long term, but maintaining these things would be costly unless majority of ships start using this method.

[@seneca983]

They said it's $400 per day which would come to about $146,000 per year. If we assume that the shipping company expects a 10% return on investments these sails could cost $1,460,000 and still make financial sense. Of course, there are complications because the sails don't last forever, because there probably are some maintenance costs, and because ships don't sail every single day of the year. On the other hand, these things probably don't cost quite that much.

[@FreekToTakex]

Why not make the largest container ships nuclear powered? There must be a way to do this safely and with reasonable costs. A reactor could be able to power those ships for long periods of time without refueling, and give them more power than conventional engines, allowing the ships to traverse the seas more quickly.

[@Half_Finis]

I'm imagening one of the problems might be political, you're giving a private company access to nuclear fuel, which the paranoid politician would claim could be used for nukes. And now you're accepting some random Panama registered ship to have nukes aboard and it can sail into your densely populated city?!?! I know it sounds silly but I agree 100% that they should be nuclear power. If humans ever want to keep the earth alive we need to pickup nuclear power more, every nation should have nuclear power plants, I'm under the mindset that its too late to start believing solar will save us. We need more years before solar is ready in bought manufacture and efficency. Support politicians that want to save you, support nuclear

[@alfredbudy1985]

Hydrogen Fuel Cell ships. This is the most convenient technology to be applied. Combined with wind, biodiesel, and hydrogen fuel cell system that uses seawater is applicable. The USA Navy is retrofitting some ships with hydrogen fuel cell technology now. Graphene and Solar could make this profitable for the fishing industry. Hydrogen fuel cell byproduct is water and methane : water could be used in aquaponics and methane gas byproduct could maintain greenhouse atmosphere for ships to grow hydroponically. Solar and graphene help with the hydrogen fuel cell and converting clean water with graphene filters. Biodiesel hemp fuel could be an alternative to diesel at 30 barrels an acre. Countries don’t have to play political games to be sustainable.

[@yannikoloff7659]

@@Half_Finis Panama channel doesn't able to receive biggest container ships, it's not wide enough. That's why Nicaragua build another channel now. And nuclear ships have to be state owned from now on.

[@yannikoloff7659]

@@alfredbudy1985 Yep. And in 30 years we all gonna live on the Moon and fly to Mars on weekends. This is the shit I read in magasines dated 1950-60. Hydrogen could help a little, but it would be same help as those turbine sails, 1%. And 1 thing, remember Hindenburg?

[@ConvetionalHeretic]

They tried this before, a cargo ship called the savannah back in the 50s or 60s turns outs it is way to expensive (cost of building and dismanteling reactors) (also finding enough trained nuclear engineers is just not feasable unlike dinojuice grease monkeys ;) ), way to dangerous (accidents, terrorism etc.) so not the way to go...

[@youjustgotowendbyme]

So how much does the rotor cost?

[@macrumpton]

Mechanically they are pretty simple, but as a prototype these were probably quite expensive, probably 50K each, but once you have decided to outfit a fleet it would drop to a fraction of that because everything is not custom made for that one unit.

[@aaron___6014]

@@macrumpton Try 400-950k usd. Where did you get $50k

[@oggyreidmore]

I know it wouldn't work in all countries, but investing in manufacturing at home and recycling raw materials could cut down on shipping more than anything.

[@bigrichp7]

The explanation of how this generates thrust is completely wrong....... 'when wind hits the cylinders they spin really fast'.... The cylinders are usually spun using an electric motor or otherwise, and the force generated by perpendicular airflow generates thrust (magnus effect). Did VICE do any research into how these work...

[@Phrancis5]

I was kinda wondering about that part. There are many YT videos of RC planes with cylindrical wings spun by motors to create the magnus effect and fly, but it doesn't look very efficient or elegant. Seems like a vertical airfoil wing sail would be better.

[@seneca983]

@@Phrancis5: I think per surface area a spinning cylinder creates more thrust and they have the advantage that a wind coming from a wrong direction won't exert a large force on them that could reduce the ship's stability or tear the sails off.

[@geonerd]

Of course they didn't. Real journalism is hard!

[@AV-yj4sf]

Title: The shipping industry may finally be turning to wind power First statement made by the reporter: The shipping industry doesn't have any plans to reduce its huge environmental impact Signed: Vice

[@r3d0c]

comment - signed moron

[@leowulffan]

With nuclear power would be a good option

[@BernardLS]

@@leowulffan ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black cSt380 onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth is pushed about by gas turbines. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seems to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened.

[@AlexDegnovic]

Hope to see these in the future

[@ericcl5313]

Shadow Playa they are obviously here tho bro

[@davidanalyst671]

I hope to see vice stop being propaganda in the future

[@wvadam]

a joke indeed. They do not "Net" $400 a day, that is just the fuel saving as he stated carefully. The cost of implementing and operating as well as modifying the ships and ports to accommodate these is another matter. That is also his best estimate, what if there is poor wind.

[@antonymichealraj8857]

I think according to the company , it will pay itself back in a year or so .

[@Phrancis5]

Seems like a vertical airfoil wing sail would be better. There are many YT videos of RC planes with cylindrical wings spun by motors to create the magnus effect and fly, but it doesn't look very efficient or elegant. I don't see how wind alone would spin these cylinders.

[@nihal8447]

They are driven by motors. This video is bullshit.

[@Roadrun98]

Amd how much does it cost to build?

[@Aaron16211]

Maersk is clearing thinking of building clean "cradle to cradle" ships for clean disassembly so we might see the biggest trade ships renewably powered quite soon, see KZbin "Maersk Cradle to Cradle Passport". Perhaps Tesla with batteries and onboard solar and micro wind will have prototypes soon as well. Imagine our ships' batteries being recharged fully while in our cities' ports with electricity from regional wind, hydro, solar and or geothermal generated electricity. Sounds like a clean, renewably powered circular economy.

[@Skoda130]

Looks like a drop of savings in an ocean of fuel.

[@joshbobst1629]

They should try the dynarig. Ships with that sailplan are so maneuverable they can sail off their moorings, have a design speed in the twenty knot range, and require a crew of one to sail.

[@shrededpudding5921]

"frigate spinner" ayy lmao

[@tsufordman]

90% of international goods move by ship and that only create 2.2% of the emissions. That just shows how greatly efficient shipping already is.

[@seneca983]

It is pretty efficient but the low share also tells of the fact that there's just a lot of other economic activity producing emissions aside from just transporting goods. There's electricity generation, heating, food production, and cement production to name a few.

[@oBlackCoffee]

Ships

[@florantealbarracin1152]

Ships

[@otavio8566]

Ships

[@rjl9967]

Ships

[@eosprodromos3803]

Boats

[@MrKPRules]

god dammit ryder

[@TristanBanks]

It's not about the saved money, it's the saved emissions and lower fuel use.

[@BernardLS]

As an example the above container (called boxes by nautical folk) area of a Maersk triple E is less than 399.2m by 59m. The 399.2m is the length between perpendiculars (marine tech speak - no need to worry about it) and the 59m is the width overall (more marine tech speak so again no need to worry about it) allowing for the sides, bow, stern & navigation/accommodation structure could we agree 340m x 56m or 19 040m2 for the ‘top of stow’ area? Insolation rate in Joules will vary due to time of day, latitude of vessel, declination of sun, (those three impact the elevation of the power source) cloud cover, efficiency of solar panels and how clean they are. The triple E class use 29 680 kiloWatts for propulsion at full whack plus some hotel and services power load cost; so for round numbers, could we agree 30 megaWatts? Solar panels create about 155 Watts m2 averaged out; 19 040 x 155 gives me 2 951 200 Watts (or 3 megaWatts for a round number) from the top of all the boxes. Three megaWatts might allow you to distil enough fresh water from the sea to wash the crud of the solar panels (surprise fact renewable energy comes with maintenance costs) but nowhere near enough to effectively 'push the boat along'. Fitting solar panels on top of the ‘boxes’ is worth, at most, 1% of your power requirement. More seriously the ‘boxes’ are loaded and unloaded from the top down so the solar panel array would need to be moved for every port operation and time is money as well as that operation having the ability to get very complicated (tech speak for ‘go wrong’). Any additional weight would be in the worst possible place for the stability of your vessel, the operating environment would be harsh and the ‘top of stow’ on a ‘box boat’ is seldom a level expanse as each column of containers may be, and usually is, of differing heights. 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. Random facts about Cutty Sark. It is said to have been able 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 that is about ⅔ of the power that might be harvested from the ‘top of stow’ of a Maersk triple E, again in those elusive ideal conditions. 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. 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.

[@Justwantahover]

How does the wind turn a cylinder? I'm sure if I made a spinning cylinder it would do nothing in the wind. And I can't see anything that could spin the cylinders. Are the cylinders powered and that deflects the wind?

[@davidanalyst671]

there are motors inside the cylinder that spin and direct the wind

[@luisblum7464]

what bout placin such a rotor on truck top. maybr not that tall. 0.5meter or so?

[@rtdlaboratories]

The money they save on the fuel can't be more than they loose by sacrifising deck space made for cargo to install those spinners.

[@markusleschly]

Yo Vox, let's be clear here... The Magnus effect is not at all what makes an airplane fly. Either it was poorly worded or you guys should double check your physics.

[@seneca983]

Though you could probably make a plane like that as well.

[@geonerd]

"But journalism is so haaaard. Boo-hoo!"

[@stripeybeast]

I was expecting the impact to be small but $400 per day for a ship like this is not even a rounding error. Can’t expect mass adoption of these rotor sails at those returns

[@0hn0haha]

Ever since Vice went to HBO, it's gotten so good! Back to unbiased reporting, love it.

[@xerepapeti9642]

Can it be use for small boat also?

[@vxcomanche]

The wind doesn’t turn the rotors. The engines spin them and the wind hitting the spinning rotors creates the Magnus effect.

[@stopscammingman]

Its amazing how something can be a return to the traditional way of getting energy for shipping and at the same time extremely innovative!

[@MaxMakerChannel]

400$ per day sounds like a joke. I am all for wind power, but that saving is tiny.

[@Brickkzz]

Max Maker lol I agree this isn't newsworthy. $400 is literally nothing, costs of implementation of the technology (HR, ship downtime, installation and periodical maintenance) would be so much higher in costs

[@Bill-zp2mt]

It's because of low production, if it were mass produced the cost of installation and maintenance would go down.

[@primordialblob]

Well, that's 146k/yr. I don't have any numbers for installation costs / longevity of these things, but if they can run for 10 years without significant maintenance there's a fair chance it could be economically viable.

[@MaxMakerChannel]

My understanding was that these 400$ are for mass production and not the prototype and including maintenance. Otherwise you could not come up with a day rate.

[@MaxMakerChannel]

Mass production economy of scales are not very big for something of this size btw.

[@djtwotimes]

On the comment of shipping industry's efforts, noteworthy to mention recently International Maritime Organization has approved lowering the Sulphur limit on shipping fuel oil from 3.5% to 0.5% for the entire world's seas on 1 Jan 2020, same technique used in SEC areas around US and North Europe coastal waters. This should help reduce those 2.2%.

[@amosbatto3051]

Getting rid of the sulfur will reduce acid rain and human respiratory diseases, but it won't do anything to reduce CO2 emissions.

[@wvadam]

This is good for our health but would china comply? low sulphur diesel is far more expensive and hurt their economic interests.

[@mieguistumas]

Rotor sails have to be spun by diesel engines, I believe, they do not spin just from wind, do they? I mean, these early ones and planes that used Magnus effect had engines to spin the rotor sails.

[@seneca983]

I'd imagine that they would use an electric engine rather than a diesel engine to spin them.

[@geonerd]

@@seneca983 Woosh.....

[@seneca983]

@@geonerd Then care to explain what I missed?

[@JeffBourke]

Saving $400 per day... but we will break even....

[@darkvramp]

could the rotor sails be hooked up to a turbine to create electricity and hybridize the ship?

[@vlexchristensen]

Darkvramp that's a great idea, I don't see why not.

[@LeoPuspito]

That's what I'm thinking

[@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing]

I imagine it would be a question of drag created by the turbine vs the lift (forward) being generated by leaving them free spinning. The same problem has been an issue with charging hybrid bicycles with an electric motor. The excess drag that occurs during pedaling or free rolling can be less than it's worth. But then again, it's probably gonna be like Photovoltaic Solar cells. Give it enough evolution time and it will achieve net gains vs the cost/drag/drawbacks.

[@Drumsgoon]

you are aware that every energy-conversion costs energy right? So wind energy to mechanical energy of the sail, to electrical energy, to mechanical energy for the rotor of the ship. Sounds great! Like most green energy techniques, it will work, as long as you throw a whole lot of subsidies at it.

[@hada1011]

No. In fact, you have to use motor to keep them spinning at a certain speed to use the Magnus effect. You dont need a lot of power for that but its not the wind that spins them.

[@toolthoughts]

they already tried sails for millennia, and no one is really using them for commercial shipping anymore, for some reason

[@hornypervert3781]

stereomike111 sails are not as fast as steam.

[@BernardLS]

as an example the above container (called boxes by nautical folk) area of a Maersk triple E is less than 399.2m by 59m. The 399.2m is the length between perpendiculars (marine tech speak - no need to worry about it) and the 59m is the width overall (more marine tech speak so again no need to worry about it) allowing for the sides, bow, stern & navigation/accommodation structure could we agree 340m x 56m or 19 040m2 for the ‘top of stow’ area? Insolation rate in Joules will vary due to time of day, latitude of vessel, declination of sun, (those three impact the elevation of the power source) cloud cover, efficiency of solar panels and how clean they are. The triple E class use 29 680 kiloWatts for propulsion at full whack plus some hotel and services power load cost; so for round numbers, could we agree 30 megaWatts? Solar panels create about 155 Watts m2 averaged out; 19 040 x 155 gives me 2 951 200 Watts (or 3 megaWatts for a round number) from the top of all the boxes. Three megaWatts might allow you to distil enough fresh water from the sea to wash the crud of the solar panels (surprise fact renewable energy comes with maintenance costs) but nowhere near enough to effectively 'push the boat along'. Fitting solar panels on top of the ‘boxes’ is worth, at most, 1% of your power requirement. More seriously the ‘boxes’ are loaded and unloaded from the top down so the solar panel array would need to be moved for every port operation and time is money as well as that operation having the ability to get very complicated (tech speak for ‘go wrong’). Any additional weight would be in the worst possible place for the stability of your vessel, the operating environment would be harsh and the ‘top of stow’ on a ‘box boat’ is seldom a level expanse as each column of containers may be, and usually is, of differing heights. 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. Random facts about Cutty Sark. It is said to have been able 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 that is about ⅔ of the power that might be harvested from the ‘top of stow’ of a Maersk triple E, again in those elusive ideal conditions. 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. 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.

[@Coyot0xx0]

I thought they were cylindrical wind powered electric generators. It's interesting though and it is good to know that at least some people are really trying to make effort to the right direction.

[@maxworth4687]

Biofuels are pretty questionable.

[@The-r4k]

There usually made from old growth trees, it's the most disgusting polluting fuel out there

[@nihal8447]

Completely wrong explanation. Wind doesn't spin the rotors. Big Motors powered by an engine do.

[@TheXavier20000]

For Christs sake give us the information in percentages. Telling us how many gallons these things save is almost meaningless.

[@drmodestoesq]

Arhhhhhhh! Ye swabs are not givin' us vital economic data 'bout this contraption they want to nail to the fo'c'sle.

[@tomatoisasquishyfruit]

We need really giant sails on these ships providing 100% power. Doesn't matter if the ships are a bit slower. Let's see how that works.

[@BernardLS]

As an example the above container (called boxes by nautical folk) area of a Maersk triple E is less than 399.2m by 59m. The 399.2m is the length between perpendiculars (marine tech speak - no need to worry about it) and the 59m is the width overall (more marine tech speak so again no need to worry about it) allowing for the sides, bow, stern & navigation/accommodation structure could we agree 340m x 56m or 19 040m2 for the ‘top of stow’ area? Insolation rate in Joules will vary due to time of day, latitude of vessel, declination of sun, (those three impact the elevation of the power source) cloud cover, efficiency of solar panels and how clean they are. The triple E class use 29 680 kiloWatts for propulsion at full whack plus some hotel and services power load cost; so for round numbers, could we agree 30 megaWatts? Solar panels create about 155 Watts m2 averaged out; 19 040 x 155 gives me 2 951 200 Watts (or 3 megaWatts for a round number) from the top of all the boxes. Three megaWatts might allow you to distil enough fresh water from the sea to wash the crud of the solar panels (surprise fact renewable energy comes with maintenance costs) but nowhere near enough to effectively 'push the boat along'. Fitting solar panels on top of the ‘boxes’ is worth, at most, 1% of your power requirement. More seriously the ‘boxes’ are loaded and unloaded from the top down so the solar panel array would need to be moved for every port operation and time is money as well as that operation having the ability to get very complicated (tech speak for ‘go wrong’). Any additional weight would be in the worst possible place for the stability of your vessel, the operating environment would be harsh and the ‘top of stow’ on a ‘box boat’ is seldom a level expanse as each column of containers may be, and usually is, of differing heights. 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. Random facts about Cutty Sark. It is said to have been able 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 that is about ⅔ of the power that might be harvested from the ‘top of stow’ of a Maersk triple E, again in those elusive ideal conditions. 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. 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.

[@0poIE]

Love the Finnish accent in English - One of the BEST!

[@JeremiCzarnecki]

Not sure if this is the best part, or that his name is "Riski"

[@KingOfShenanigan]

Why aren't there more than 2?

[@tstcikhthyss]

He most likely meant "tonnes" (megagrams), not "tons". So 400 tonnes would be 400 Mg (881 849 lbs; 400 000 kg), which is vastly different from 400 US tons (800 000 lbs; 362 873 kg) and 400 Imperial tons (896 000 lbs; 406 419 kg).

[@BernardLS]

As an example the above container (called boxes by nautical folk) area of a Maersk triple E is less than 399.2m by 59m. The 399.2m is the length between perpendiculars (marine tech speak - no need to worry about it) and the 59m is the width overall (more marine tech speak so again no need to worry about it) allowing for the sides, bow, stern & navigation / accommodation structure could we agree 340m x 56m or 19 040m2 for the ‘top of stow’ area? Insolation rate in Joules will vary due to time of day, latitude of vessel, declination of sun, (those three impact the elevation of the power source) cloud cover, efficiency of solar panels and how clean they are. The triple E class use 29 680 kiloWatts for propulsion at full whack plus some hotel and services power load cost; so for round numbers, could we agree 30 megaWatts? Solar panels create about 155 Watts m2 averaged out; 19 040 x 155 gives me 2 951 200 Watts (or 3 megaWatts for a round number) from the top of all the boxes. Three megaWatts might allow you to distil enough fresh water from the sea to wash the crud of the solar panels (surprise fact renewable energy comes with maintenance costs) but nowhere near enough to effectively 'push the boat along'. Fitting solar panels on top of the ‘boxes’ is worth, at most, 1% of your power requirement. More seriously the ‘boxes’ are loaded and unloaded from the top down so the solar panel array would need to be moved for every port operation and time is money as well as that operation having the ability to get very complicated (tech speak for ‘go wrong’). Any additional weight would be in the worst possible place for the stability of your vessel, the operating environment would be harsh and the ‘top of stow’ on a ‘box boat’ is seldom a level expanse as each column of containers may be, and usually is, of differing heights. 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. 'Cutty Sark' is said to have been able 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 that is about ⅔ of the power that might be harvested from the ‘top of stow’ of a Maersk triple E, again in those elusive ideal conditions. 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. 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.

[@NoWheyHombre]

"Shipping companies have seen huge losses in recent years" boy did that not age well. The shipping cartels are seeing record profits lol.

[@rajivananfrancis1683]

Waiting to see a hydrogen powered ship too.

[@augustlandmesser1520]

Ammonia, better.

[@manosjaitan3101]

Just bring back the good old sails mate 😂⛵

[@BernardLS]

as an example the above container (called boxes by nautical folk) area of a Maersk triple E is less than 399.2m by 59m. The 399.2m is the length between perpendiculars (marine tech speak - no need to worry about it) and the 59m is the width overall (more marine tech speak so again no need to worry about it) allowing for the sides, bow, stern & navigation/accommodation structure could we agree 340m x 56m or 19 040m2 for the ‘top of stow’ area? Insolation rate in Joules will vary due to time of day, latitude of vessel, declination of sun, (those three impact the elevation of the power source) cloud cover, efficiency of solar panels and how clean they are. The triple E class use 29 680 kiloWatts for propulsion at full whack plus some hotel and services power load cost; so for round numbers, could we agree 30 megaWatts? Solar panels create about 155 Watts m2 averaged out; 19 040 x 155 gives me 2 951 200 Watts (or 3 megaWatts for a round number) from the top of all the boxes. Three megaWatts might allow you to distil enough fresh water from the sea to wash the crud of the solar panels (surprise fact renewable energy comes with maintenance costs) but nowhere near enough to effectively 'push the boat along'. Fitting solar panels on top of the ‘boxes’ is worth, at most, 1% of your power requirement. More seriously the ‘boxes’ are loaded and unloaded from the top down so the solar panel array would need to be moved for every port operation and time is money as well as that operation having the ability to get very complicated (tech speak for ‘go wrong’). Any additional weight would be in the worst possible place for the stability of your vessel, the operating environment would be harsh and the ‘top of stow’ on a ‘box boat’ is seldom a level expanse as each column of containers may be, and usually is, of differing heights. 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. Random facts about Cutty Sark. It is said to have been able 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 that is about ⅔ of the power that might be harvested from the ‘top of stow’ of a Maersk triple E, again in those elusive ideal conditions. 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. 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.

[@vladark138]

Fascinating ! Never heard of rotor sails before.

[@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing]

Those whacky Vikings.

[@MrCabra23]

4c1dr3fl3x south park?

[@subhambhattacharjee4826]

Save mother earth

[@charleskuhn382]

Subham Bhattacharjee mother earth doesn't care. Save us!

[@blobjoehugo1895]

Stop shitting in the streetsv

[@ConvetionalHeretic]

If this ever gets implemented large scale, its going to be to rely less on oil producing nations then to save the enviroment. Btw. What do these wings cost? And what do they cost to maintain? Probably barely break even with the fuel savings. Also our global logistics system reallly is fine tuned to run at a certain pace. Totaly depending on variable wind is just not an option. The 2% emmissions comment is also misleading. 2% emmissions for how much % of world trade being moved around? Is that really comparable to the emmissions flocks of tourists create when going on holiday 3x/year or personal transportation in cars?

[@rontaylor3403]

BTW: bunker fuel cost ( marine fuel for cargo ships ) is apx $635 per ton. container ships use apx 190 tons of fuel per day at sea. $635 per ton x 190 tons per day = $120,000 per day a $400.00 per day savings is negligible. using actual cloth sails makes much more sense. you would save the 120,000 per day at sea. but that would make way too much sense for today's intellectuals who only want to put tiny bandaids on gaping wounds.

[@liamstacey419]

Jaques Cousteau had Turbo sails on his ship The Alcyon that did not require motors- right?

[@BenPortermike]

Naw, I'm waiting for the hyperloop for containers.

[@tommywong3147]

Seems like the kite system is more efficient and they guarantee REturn on investment in 3 years.... I don't know. What do u guys think

[@ocelotecpatl]

Weren't ships before used wind power?

[@drmodestoesq]

Some were oar driven. Like the galleys.

[@geremymac]

That presenter just bugs me... it's his whole demeanour

[@V0YAG3R]

Gerre Yep, typical supremacist, patronizing, condescending tone, look, demeanor and body language of any modern day International socialist & Co. brownshirt, just the eyebrow movement says it all during the interview, they're always like that, everywhere.

[@xboxgorgo18]

"It's evolving, just backwards."

[@reygreygreygreyg]

400 USD/day when wind is blowing as hell? not realy much enough... its only a toy.

[@ElChe-Ko]

the cylinders don't spin because of the wind

[@kairon156]

I Heard of this design before but never found out if it was in piratical use. Also $400 is huge savings per day. Granted I'm just a regular unemployed person, but I imagine a company saving that much could spend the money elsewhere Either in other investments to a new ship at the end of the year or help with taxes come tax time.

[@Sayedmanaa]

Good idea 👍

[@ultrajorge]

If CO2 emission is your problem then you can reduce it by encouraging countries to make their own food, clothes, etc. I mean, everything is shipped from China nowadays.

[@天桥豆汁儿]

kite boat save 20%fuel

[@sajjeel123]

I ship them

[@skyak4493]

For all those who are excited by the possibilities but pissed that this video offers no useable data - The best discussion of this exact topic is on BoatDesign.net -lots of smart enthusiasts and actual responsible professionals. Search "magnus effect" There is another more promising tech using kites and there is also a movement making complete carbon-less shipping (that's still a marketing supported system).

[@darrenslatta]

It would be more environmentally friendly not to waste all that space on the ship

[@joecrell4949]

“the shipping industry doesn’t have any plans to reduce its huge environmental impact, and nobody’s forcing it to”- VICE is wrong on this. The IMO is an organization of maritime nations that does take environmental impact seriously. For example, the 2020 fuel oil sulfur reduction limits. Not sure why they lead off with such a misleading statement.

[@davidanalyst671]

The shipping industy was only wind from before 1000 BC to 1900 AD. Its funny when dooshes like vice say that the shipping industry is switching to wind to keep up with Vice's agenda

[@aaron___6014]

400-950k usd

[@adenhaigler2164]

It would honestly be so hard to steer 😂heavier the sailboat the harder to turn and bigger the keel harder to turn

[@davidanalyst671]

oh, no doubt they turn it off when they are headed into port olz

[@adenhaigler2164]

@@davidanalyst671 u basically have to do that with any sailboat in port or marina u have to motor out

[@xXxSkyViperxXx]

so its like a windmill on top of a ship lol

[@aarononeal9830]

If you're looking for away to help the environment you can use ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees

[@matthewpopp1054]

Can these work on land?

[@CortezEspartaco2]

matthew popp To generate electricity, yes. The are a lot of projects going on right now experimenting with unconventional wind turbines, and some similar designs to this (using the same lift properties) are being looked into. In this particular case, they're not generating electricity; they're simply propelling the ship forward. On land you wouldn't really want the structure to "push" itself forward, so that would just be lost energy, really. It could even tip itself over if it was turning fast enough. This specific design is better suited to maritime, but some similar turbines that don't propel themselves are viable for use on land. The main advantages to using a cylindrical design is that 1) the direction of the wind doesn't matter and 2) you can fit more turbines in a smaller area.

[@bochereauaugerghislain4561]

BONJOUR , excusez moi ,serais t il possible d expliquer le fonctionnement du navire ,comme visite , sans morçure ,sirs !

[@ViggoRoffe]

Didn't know Marilyn Manson worked for a wind company now

[@NeogenicOrg]

Hahaha 400 bux, so if the ship was at sea 365 days , which it wouldn't, and the wind blew full force everyday, which wouldn't, it would save 146,000$

[@seneca983]

"and the wind blew full force everyday" No, the $400 was the daily average. Some days would get stronger winds and some weaker.

[@AB-pe5nl]

$400 savings per day lol. Plus, look how much room the roto sails take up! Thats less space for cargo, meaning more trips, which means... MORE FUEL BURNT. LOL.

[@VASHXKALIBER]

What is there isn't any wind?

[@BernardLS]

The wind don't blow the ship don't go

[@twistedsister60]

Why am I thinking about the Thanos meme

[@rboertbuegrrneuer7363]

You cant covert 400 to s of fuel into 1000 pounds of Co2 per year in savings it doesnt work that way

[@evanbourassa9838]

Reducing 400 tons of fuel = 1000 tons of C02? LOL

[@aivansama6265]

You see the O2 that appears in the formula? Even oxygen has a weight and its not included in the fuel. LOL

[@commercialartservicesartwo3133]

There goes half of my invention idea. :(

[@altyndom7039]

$400 is nothing when compared to the cost of these humongous waste of money you would need to sail around 10 years just to break even.

[@kami-3353]

my dude at 3:10 speaks like elon musk

[@googletaqiyya184]

2.2 % of 5% of 4% of the total atmosphere. Not a big deal plus Co2 is NOT pollution ! No CO2, no life on earth !

[@EternalShadow1667]

3 years on…yeah, not quickly at least

[@nosuprises85]

I wonder if they could also use this like a windmill, so while the sail is spinning its simultaneously charging a battery that can be drawn on for electric power, amplifying it’s clean energy potential

[@90XVision]

What if there's no wind

[@seneca983]

Then they just have to use the propellers. To my knowledge, even on windy days these only provide a portion of the thurst and you still need the propellers as well. The benefit is merely reduced fuel consumption.

[@glotzer141]

15% of carbon emissions.....!!! BIG DIFFERENCE

[@rocadezona85]

So even if we switched ALL shipping to rotor sails we would only be eliminating 2.2% of carbon emissions...what about the materials for the sails, doesn't mining them come with environmental issues too? What about speed?and before you accuse me of only thinking about money you're wrong, when shipping routes are slowed down by any disaster the media talks about dollars lost per day but there is an actual tangible impact on people's life in the form of shortages of goods. Does it mean that now we might need to build extra ships and bigger warehouses to keep up with consumption. Wouldn't it all be built with FOSSIL FUELS anyway?.I perceive from Vice the same old tired premise of "zero emissions options are possible but greed won't allow it "

[@hueyfreeman7010]

The next big this is LNG ships not this.

[@Tapni7]

People, you're missing the key point here! Maybe 400 dollars isn't that much in money but it sure is a lot in exhaust gas emissions. 400e equals roughly to a ton of marine diesel oil. The driving factor of rotor sails is to cut emissions, meanwhile saving a bit of money.