5 ms·

This is super cool, but until cargo vessels have any sort of restrictions on their carbon emissions, I hardly see this being adopted. We're on track to burn 500

This is super cool, but until cargo vessels have any sort of restrictions on their carbon emissions, I hardly see this being adopted. We're on track to burn 500 million tonnes of Bunker oil by 2020 and the EU is just _proposing_ some sulfur and nitrogen reduction standards. Without any international restrictions or some other factor to increase the cost of operating, what incentive are companies going to have to adopt these new technologies?

ravar 7y ago
If the technology actually works then the companies would burn less fuel, and save money in the process. That should be an effective incentive.
- pinko 7y ago
  Read the caveats at the bottom of the article -- the ship owner who has to make the capital investment doesn't pay for the fuel, so there's a perverse disincentive to invest in this technology (assuming it works).
  - ian0 7y ago
    Not really a disincentive, if the person paying the fuel could pay less it for it while using fleet X it would surely be a competitive advantage to the fleets owner. Perhaps the keyword in the quote is "untested", with a unwritten "why bother unless I have to / other owners do it".
    - toss1 7y ago
      Exactly. The key hurdle is getting the first ship fleet owner to invest in the technology. Once that's working, he'll have a competitive advantage offering renters lower fuel costs. He'll have some combination of higher booking rates or ability to charge higher prices, effectively splitting the gains
  - mks 7y ago
    Maybe the SkySail could own the sail system and sell the "thrust" - basically charging a success fee for saved fuel. In a similar vein in how the airlines don't own the engines of their airplanes but rent them from manufacturer - https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12528/jet-engines-are-they-owned-by-the-airline-or-just-rented https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12528/jet-engin... Of course this is an armchair thought experiment, but I am curious about your opinions.
djokkataja 7y ago
Because it would save money, presumably. For example, in a 10,000 ton boat: "While the kite was in use, the ship saved an estimated 10-15% fuel, $1,000 to $1,500 per day." (From the linked article)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
tawm 7y ago
Since half of your comment is plainly wrong, all I'll bother with is asking you to inform yourself. Here's a good start: http://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-2020.aspx http://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-20...
- thinkingkong 7y ago
  Oh wow thanks! I thought this was still being proposed but I was reading Wikipedia. Cool that the sulfur reductions are in place, but that's still not going to affect co2 emissions, and because these rules apply - lets assume equally - to all ships it doesn't necessarily impact the economics. If the sail really reduces the cost by the stated amount minus the caveat at the bottom of the article that would be impressive.

ravar 7y ago

If the technology actually works then the companies would burn less fuel, and save money in the process. That should be an effective incentive.

pinko 7y ago
Read the caveats at the bottom of the article -- the ship owner who has to make the capital investment doesn't pay for the fuel, so there's a perverse disincentive to invest in this technology (assuming it works).
- ian0 7y ago
  Not really a disincentive, if the person paying the fuel could pay less it for it while using fleet X it would surely be a competitive advantage to the fleets owner. Perhaps the keyword in the quote is "untested", with a unwritten "why bother unless I have to / other owners do it".
  - toss1 7y ago
    Exactly. The key hurdle is getting the first ship fleet owner to invest in the technology. Once that's working, he'll have a competitive advantage offering renters lower fuel costs. He'll have some combination of higher booking rates or ability to charge higher prices, effectively splitting the gains
- mks 7y ago
  Maybe the SkySail could own the sail system and sell the "thrust" - basically charging a success fee for saved fuel. In a similar vein in how the airlines don't own the engines of their airplanes but rent them from manufacturer - https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12528/jet-engines-are-they-owned-by-the-airline-or-just-rented https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12528/jet-engin... Of course this is an armchair thought experiment, but I am curious about your opinions.

djokkataja 7y ago

Because it would save money, presumably. For example, in a 10,000 ton boat: "While the kite was in use, the ship saved an estimated 10-15% fuel, $1,000 to $1,500 per day." (From the linked article)

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

tawm 7y ago

Since half of your comment is plainly wrong, all I'll bother with is asking you to inform yourself. Here's a good start: http://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-2020.aspx http://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-20...

thinkingkong 7y ago
Oh wow thanks! I thought this was still being proposed but I was reading Wikipedia. Cool that the sulfur reductions are in place, but that's still not going to affect co2 emissions, and because these rules apply - lets assume equally - to all ships it doesn't necessarily impact the economics. If the sail really reduces the cost by the stated amount minus the caveat at the bottom of the article that would be impressive.